Starbucks On Brink Of Worst Crash Since Dot Com After "Stunning" Earnings Miss

Starbucks shares plummeted by 16% during the early cash session, approaching the -16.2% level last seen during the Covid crash. If intraday losses surpass 16.2% and remain above this level at closing, it would mark the company's worst single-day loss since the Dot Com crash in early 2000.

"Starbucks reported what's perhaps the worst set of results of any large company so far" this quarter, analyst Adam Crisafulli of Vital Knowledge wrote in a note. William Blair downgraded the coffee chain, citing last quarter's "stunning across-the-board miss on all key metrics."

Starbucks reported a 4% drop in same-store sales in the second quarter compared with the same period last year, while analysts tracked by Bloomberg were expecting growth. In China, same-store sales plunged 11%. The company's top geographic segments are showing a pullback in consumer spending. 

On Tuesday evening, CEO Laxman Narasimhan started the earnings call with investors by clarifying his unhappiness with last quarter's results. 

"Let me be clear from the beginning. Our performance this quarter was disappointing and did not meet our expectations," Narasimhan said. 

He said major headwinds originate from a "cautious consumer," adding, "A deteriorating economic outlook has weighed on customer traffic and impact felt broadly across the industry." 

Here's a snapshot of the second quarter's earnings results (list courtesy of Bloomberg):

• Comparable sales -4%, estimate +1.46% (Bloomberg Consensus)

• North America comparable sales -3%, estimate +2.05%

• US comparable sales -3%, estimate +2.31%

• International comparable sales -6%, estimate +1.36%

• China comparable sales -11%, estimate -1.62% 

• Adjusted EPS 68c, estimate 80c 

• Net revenue $8.56 billion, estimate $9.13 billion

• Operating income $1.10 billion, -17% y/y, estimate $1.35 billion

• Adjusted operating margin 12.8%, estimate 14.5%

• Operating margin 12.8%, estimate 14.4%

• North America operating margin +18%, estimate +19.5%

• International operating margin 13.3%, estimate 15.2% 

• Channel development operating margin 51.7%, estimate 43.6%

• Average ticket +2%, estimate +2.41% 

• North American average ticket price +4%, estimate +4.15%

• International avg. ticket -3%, estimate +0.1%

• North America net new stores 134, estimate 144.33

• International net new store openings 230, estimate 429.23

• Comparable transactions -6%, estimate -0.27% 

• North America comparable transactions -7%, estimate -1.86%

• International comparable transactions -3%, estimate +1.37%

Goldman analysts Eric Mihelc and Scott Feiler told clients, "Expectations were for a clear sales miss and a modest EPS miss, but both came worse than the lowered bar." 

They added, "The miss was across geography and was as bad, if not worse, than worst fears." 

Other Wall Street analysts shared the same gloom and doom about the coffee chain (list courtesy of Bloomberg): 

Deutsche Bank analyst Lauren Silberman cuts Starbucks to hold from buy 

• Says the "challenging" results was a sign "headwinds are more pervasive and persistent than we expected, and we have limited visibility into the pace and magnitude of a recovery"

• Had thought comparable sales deceleration in the US was more transitory and isolated to a specific cohort

•  However, with the decline in 2Q traffic and what seems to be limited improvement from Lavender and Spicy Refreshers, Silberman sees it being difficult to "underwrite a meaningful reacceleration," which is key to the bull case

William Blair, Sharon Zackfia (cuts to market perform from outperform)

• After healthy demand over the past three years, Zackfia says the "tide has turned quickly," with Starbucks posting the weakest traffic performance outside the pandemic or Great Recession

• China now "looks more fragile," with comparable sales down 11%, and even Starbucks Rewards members "took a rare dip," she adds

Jefferies, Andy Barish (hold)

• There was a "notable" miss on US and international comparable sales as well as EPS, and Barish says there is "no easy fix in sight to reaccelerate SSS near-term"

• Notes that international comparable sales was "similarly weak," with traffic and comparable transactions both declining; China's comparable sales miss and Middle East volatility more than offset positive comps seen in Japan, APAC and Latin America

• PT cut to $84 from $94

Citi, Jon Tower (neutral) 

• Starbucks is "putting a lot of oars in the water to try and paddle" its way back to a stable comparable sales outlook that investors would be willing to underwrite

• However, Tower expresses concern that there is not enough "coxswain keeping oarsmen working in unison/with accountability"; adds that it ignores the "true leak in the bottom of the boat," flagging broad consumer pushback to cumulative transaction growth and the value equation

•  Notes China store margins are still in the double digits and the segment is profitable despite top-line declines

•  PT cut to $85 from $95

Cowen, Andrew Charles (hold)

•  "We believe 2024 guidance has been derisked as we model 0% NA comps & 3% EPS growth, the high end of the range"

• Expects shares to be in a "holding pattern" as Starbucks restores credibility while competition and tough macroeconomic conditions present headwinds

• PT cut to $85 from $100

Bloomberg Intelligence, Michael Halen and Jennifer Bartashus

• "Starbucks slashed fiscal 2024 same-store sales, revenue and EPS guidance and lacks a cogent plan to boost demand"

• "We believe several initiatives, including targeting overnight sales, dozens of new products and a four-week mobile- app upgrade cycle are overkill — a distraction unlikely to boost traffic"

On Tuesday, a similar story occurred at McDonald's when the burger chain reported lower-than-expected quarterly sales growth. 

Notably, working-poor consumers are pulling back spending in a period of stagflation (read here & here). 

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/starbucks-brink-worst-crash-dot-com-after-stunning-earnings-miss

Exxon To Win FTC Approval For $60 Billion Pioneer Deal, Creating Energy Supergiant

 Having adversely intervened in virtually every other M&A deal in the past 3 years, the Biden FTC will reportedly allow Exxon's $60 billion purchase of Pioneer to go through after the companies agreed to minor concessions, Bloomberg reported citing people familiar with the matter. The announcement of the deal will likely come any moment, and the resulting deal will make Exxon - a company which Biden once said makes money money than god - far and away the biggest oil and natural gas producer in the Permian Basin, North America’s largest US oil field, and also the biggest energy company in the US.

Pioneer shares that had been down more than 2% on the day reversed those losses and were trading up as much as 0.9% on the news. Hess Corp, the target of a takeover bid by Chevron, also climbed 0.9% although the probability of that deal passing is far lower especially in light of the ongoing arbitration with Exxon over Guyana.  Chevron, Occidental and Chesapeake are among companies with large pending takeovers that are undergoing in-depth reviews before the FTC.

The Pioneer deal will combine two fast-growing Permian operations, lifting Exxon’s production in the basin to the equivalent of about 2 million barrels a day by 2027, up from about 600,000 last year.

More than 50 lawmakers - obviously mostly communists, pardon, democrats - urged the FTC in March to increase scrutiny on concerns a $230 billion wave of consolidation in would increase energy prices for consumers, squeeze suppliers and suppress wages. In short: enforce more Soviet-style central planning and crush conventional capitalism. As a result, investors had feared the agency, which has become more a ruthless enforcer of authoritarian anti-capitalism under Democrat admin puppet Lina Khan, would stand in the way of several large deals, especially in an election year when the Biden administration is seeking to prove its climate credentials and contain gasoline prices at all cost.

In response to the ruling communists, oil executives have claimed the deals will benefit shareholders, consumers and the environment. Exxon CEO Darren Woods said the Pioneer deal would lower its cost of production, making US barrels more competitive in the global market, and provide a strong platform for growth, which would ultimately benefit consumers. Exxon also pledged to reduce climate-warming emissions from Pioneer operations to net zero by 2035, accelerating the prior target by 15 years.

The Biden administration has constantly been at odds with the oil industry, but easing through what many executives see as necessary consolidation is likely to improve relations. With domestic crude prices up roughly 14% this year and tensions rising the Middle East, the administration is vulnerable to Republican attacks on measures that hurt the oil industry and raise fuel prices.

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/exxon-win-ftc-approval-60-billion-pioneer-deal-creating-energy-supergiant

Oh, Canada: U.S. Patients Don't Want Your Health Policies

 There's never been a worse time to get sick in Canada. Our northern neighbors must wait 2.5 years longer than Americans enrolled in Medicare to access new drugs, according to a report published this month by the Canadian Health Policy Institute.

The Canadian government has chosen to deprive its citizens of the latest therapies by dictating the prices drug makers must abide by if they want access to the Canadian market. And now, the Biden administration and several states are looking to deploy Canadian-style tactics here at home.

When public officials levy price controls on prescription drugs, they're putting the government's finances ahead of patients' lives.

Drug companies understandably prioritize selling in markets where they can make the most progress toward recouping their investments in research and development — which are about $2.6 billion per drug, on average.

That figure takes into account the many drug candidates that don't pan out. Seven of every eight compounds that enter clinical testing fail. Companies have to rely on revenue from the small minority that succeed to keep them in the black — and fund future research.

Price controls upset these economic calculations. And so they compel drug companies to wait to launch medicines in the countries that employ them — if they decide to launch them there at all.

Between 2018 and 2022, drug makers filed roughly half as many new drug applications with Canadian regulators as they did with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, according to the Canadian Health Policy Institute paper.

Just 30 of the 166 new drugs approved for marketing in Canada between 2018 and 2022 had ended up on public drug formularies by the end of 2023, CHPI reported. In the United States, 241 new drugs were on public formularies by the end of last year.

That's right. At the end of 2023, Americans had access to eight times as many new drugs on public formularies as Canadians did.

Canada was first to receive a new drug application for just 33 of the 337 drugs that received approval from at least two of the regulatory agencies in the United States, Europe, and Canada during the time period evaluated by CHPI.

And of the 92 drugs that sought approval in all three regulatory regimes between 2018 and 2022, just one launched in Canada first. American patients had first dibs on 85 of those drugs.

A February 2024 RAND Corporation study found that "most new drugs are sold first in the United States" and that "the United States has access to the largest share of new drugs overall," precisely because the "latitude to set prices" encourages companies to introduce drugs here "before launching in countries that use external reference pricing" or other forms of price controls.

That may not be the case for long. Medicare is in the process of setting price caps on 10 popular drugs in Part D, as authorized under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. Those caps will take effect in January 2026. The following year, 15 drugs under Part D will be ensnared by these price controls. In 2028, 15 from Medicare Parts B and D will be subject to price controls. And in 2029 and thereafter, it's 20 drugs from Parts B and D. The Democrats have already proposed to increase those numbers.

One study estimates that the IRA's price controls will reduce pharmaceutical companies' revenue — and thus the amount of money available for research and development — to such an extent that they'll develop 139 fewer drugs by 2035.

States are working to implement price controls of their own, too. Colorado announced in March that the state's Prescription Drug Affordability Review Board would begin setting "upper payment limit[s]" on drugs it thinks are too expensive. The board claims that over 600 drugs currently meet that threshold.

Colorado is hardly an outlier. At least eight other states have created similar bodies. Thus far, only Colorado, Washington, Minnesota, and Maryland have the authority to set price caps.

The fact that states are embracing this type of strategy is bad news, regardless of how many boards have power at the moment. They all function like Canada's Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, the agency responsible for my home country's lag in drug approvals and access.

It would be folly to think the United States could implement Canadian-style price controls and not suffer Canadian-style results. If the Biden administration and state governments continue to push for price caps, review boards, and "negotiations" with drug makers, they will inevitably restrict patients' ability to access new medicines.

Sally C. Pipes is president, CEO, and the Thomas W. Smith fellow in healthcare policy at the Pacific Research Institute.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2024/04/29/oh-canada-us-patients-dont-want-your-health-policies/?sh=5365f84915d8

Biden’s Title IX Rewrite Puts Women And Girls At Risk

 Under the banner of creating “gender equity,” the Biden administration just gutted crucial protections for women and girls and paved the way for the transgender movement’s complete destruction of female-only spaces.

In late April, after multiple delays and hundreds of thousands of public comments opposing the proposed changes, the Biden Department of Education finalized its overhaul of Title IX, the landmark 1972 law establishing important protections against sex-based discrimination. But instead of strengthening those protections, Biden’s rewrite tears them down and unilaterally redefines sex and gender according to radical gender theory.

As a result, in any educational institution which receives federal funding, males who identify as women can now enter women’s restroom and locker room facilities, citing Title IX as their justification for doing so.

Following the publication of the new policy, most media coverage has focused on the reversal of a Trump-era rule requiring colleges to follow due process in handling sexual misconduct cases.

And indeed, this change should be alarming for anyone concerned about ensuring the rights of both accusers and accused are respected in such cases. Even the far-left ACLU has spoken out against the idea that universities are now not required to “provide a live hearing and an opportunity for cross-examination where serious sanctions, such as suspension or expulsion, may apply.”

But the most egregious change under the new policy is the inclusion of self-professed gender identity under the definition of “sex” – something which Congress never intended when it passed the original law.

Some states and individual school districts have already taken action to prevent males from using women’s restrooms and locker rooms by simply claiming that they identify as a woman. But Biden’s new rules will supersede those laws and regulations and force schools to comply with the Biden administration’s radical interpretation of “gender identity.”

Parents who oppose the policy will be left with few options. Those who can’t afford homeschool or private school will be forced to allow their daughters to undress in front of males and perhaps even share hotel rooms with them on overnight trips – all in order to appease left-wing transgender activists.

Other changes to Title IX to supposedly protect against “gender-based discrimination” also enshrine key elements of far-left gender ideology in federal law.

For instance, the Biden administration has now expanded the definition of “harassment” to include not using someone’s preferred pronouns. Imagine a case where a student refuses to use absurd “neo-pronouns” like “xe/xir” or “fae/faer,” and instead refers to others only by biologically correct pronouns. That student could now be subject to disciplinary action under Title IX, while his or her school could face a federal civil rights investigation.

This terrifying prospect isn’t just theoretical; last November, while the new rules were still under review, Biden’s Department of Education launched an investigation into California’s Taft College after a student alleged his professors were “misgendering” him. Such cases are likely to become significantly more common in the months and years ahead.

As Teresa Manning, policy director for the National Association of Scholars, has pointed out, not only is this policy morally reprehensible, it is also a blatant violation of the First Amendment: “In the public education setting, students and faculty can speak—or not speak—according to their conscience. Title IX cannot change that, no matter what Biden administration officials say.”

Biden’s Title IX rewrite also further undermines parental rights by discouraging schools from disclosing to parents if their child has chosen a new gender identity or is being socially transitioned at school. As Ginny Gentles of the Independent Women’s Forum has reported, “Although the administration’s Title IX rule commentary claims that ‘nothing in these final regulations prevents a recipient from disclosing information about a minor child to their parent who has the legal right to receive disclosures on behalf of their child,’ the rule directly instructs schools to update their internal gender identity policies and points to examples of state and district policies that explicitly require schools to hide a child’s chosen identity from his or her parents.”

The new rules are set to take effect just three months from now, this August, but some conservative leaders and organizations have already taken action to challenge them.

In Georgia, Attorney General Chris Carr has filed a lawsuit to block the Title IX revision. “While different administrations can have different policy views, they cannot override the text that Congress enacted in 1972 or overrule the binding precedent of this circuit. The Biden rule does both—to the detriment of the States, their schools, and their students,” the lawsuit reads. Alabama, South Carolina, and Florida have also joined the case.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott has also said his state’s education agency will ignore the Title IX revisions, calling them “illegal” and a “ham-handed effort to impose a leftist belief onto Title IX.”

While such opposition to Biden’s Title IX rewrite at the state level is welcome and needed, it may not be enough to stop implementation of the new rules. Absent congressional action – or Biden’s defeat this November – Title IX’s 50-year-old protections for women and girls may be about to come crashing down.

https://amac.us/newsline/society/bidens-title-ix-rewrite-puts-women-and-girls-at-risk/

Swing States Are Using Taxpayer Money To Turn Out Democrat-Leaning Young Voters

 Democrat election officials in Arizona and Nevada are using taxpayer resources to register and turn out Democrat-favorable young voters ahead of the 2024 election.

On Monday, Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, a Democrat, announced that his office is partnering with the ALL IN Campus Democracy Challenge to launch the “Arizona Campus Voting Challenge.” According to an office press release, this allegedly “nonpartisan initiative” is designed to increase voter engagement among students attending accredited universities throughout the state.

Young voters (18-29) broke for Democrat House candidates over Republican ones by a nearly 2-to-1 margin during the 2022 midterms, according to estimates by the Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement at Tufts University.

Participation in the Arizona Campus Voting Challenge is free and allows participating colleges to become “eligible for awards based on voter turnout and registration rates on their campuses for the November 5, 2024 election.” Federal law makes it illegal to “make[] or offer[] to make an expenditure to any person, either to vote or withhold his vote.”

Students who join will also be “provided guidance and tools to create an action plan for increasing student engagement on their campus,” according to Fontes’ office.

“By signing up for the Arizona Campus Voting Challenge, all accredited, degree-granting higher education institutions across the state can improve, measure, and celebrate efforts to institutionalize nonpartisan civic learning, political engagement and informed voter participation,” the presser reads. “Institutions that sign up for the Arizona Campus Voting Challenge will also be automatic participants in the nationwide ALL IN where awards are issued for highest voter turnout, most improved voter turnout, and highest rate of voter registration. As well as state-specific awards for meeting objectives mapped out in an institution’s nonpartisan democratic engagement action plan.”

Despite being marketed as “nonpartisan,” the initiative appears to be anything but. As I previously wrote in these pages, ALL IN is an enterprise of Civic Nation, a left-wing nonprofit headed by Valerie Jarrett, a former senior adviser to President Barack Obama. The initiative has previously produced Democrat talking points, such as the baseless claim that “strict voter ID requirements” are “barriers” to voting.

ALL IN’s leadership team is also comprised of Democrats. Founding advisory board member Alicia Kolar Prevost, for example, previously served in the Clinton administration and worked at the Democratic National Committee.

Not Democrats’ First Rodeo

Fontes is hardly the only left-wing election official using his office to turn out a demographic favorable to Democrats.

Earlier this year, Nevada Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar, also a Democrat, announced his office would be accepting applications to join his “Youth Advisory Task Force” to engage young voters ahead of the 2024 election. According to an office press release, the task force’s priorities include “identifying and proposing programs that support participatory democracy and solutions to any problem concerning the level of participatory democracy of young voters,” and “supporting projects … that encourage and advance participatory democracy of young voters.”

Task force members were appointed by Aguilar earlier this month and include “high school and college students, as well as non-students, between the ages of 17 and 24.” There are roughly 118,000 students enrolled in Nevada colleges, according to Univstats.

Michigan Democrat Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson launched a similar task force in October.

Democrats Use Taxpayer Dollars to Target Young Voters

At the same time Democrat officials like Fontes and Aguilar target young voters with taxpayer dollars in their respective states, President Joe Biden is weaponizing the federal government to take these efforts nationwide.

Signed in March 2021, Executive Order 14019 directed hundreds of federal agencies to interfere in state and local election administration by using taxpayer funds to boost voter registration and get-out-the-vote activities. Agencies were instructed to collaborate with so-called “nonpartisan third-party organizations” that have been “approved” by the White House to provide “voter registration services on agency premises.” Of course, many of these “nonpartisan” groups have been identified as extremely left-wing, such as the ACLU and Demos.

As part of its compliance with the “Bidenbucks” order, the Department of Education issued a memo in February announcing that Federal Work-Study funds — which are used to provide part-time campus jobs to help students with tuition costs — may be used to employ students by government agencies for work such as “supporting broad-based get-out-the-vote activities, voter registration, providing voter assistance at a polling place or through a voter hotline, or serving as a poll worker.” The agency also released a “toolkit” that included guidelines for universities on how to increase voter registration and turnout on their campuses.

A Nationwide Strategy

Through the use of these taxpayer-funded GOTV operations and voter registration drives conducted by left-wing nonprofits such as the Voter Participation Center, Democrats are hoping young voters can make the difference for Biden in the battleground states needed to win the presidency this November.

In the 2020 election, for example, Biden won Arizona by less than 11,000 votes, or 0.4 percent. The Grand Canyon State also experienced close elections in the 2022 midterms, in which Democrat Kris Mayes defeated Republican Abe Hamadeh in the attorney general’s race by just 280 votes.

Given these slim margins and college students’ history of (mostly) backing Democrats, it’s no surprise Biden and Co. have made them a major focus of 2024 GOTV operations. With many students living near or on university grounds, campuses make for the perfect Democrat Party registration hubs and offer the party an opportunity to expand their chances of electoral success.

https://thefederalist.com/2024/05/01/swing-states-are-using-taxpayer-money-to-turn-out-democrat-leaning-young-voters/

Path Of Least Resistance: Northwestern in Controversial Settlement With Pro-Palestinian Protesters

 by Jonathan Turley,

Northwestern University has agreed to a controversial settlement with pro-Palestinian protesters encamped on its campus this week, including a commitment for scholarships for Palestinians, Palestinian faculty appointments, and special housing for Muslim students.

The protesters will also be allowed to continue their protests while agreeing to stay in a particular area of campus.  It will also put the students and supporting faculty on bodies to review any university investments and purchases, a major demand from supporters of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement.

Previously, protesters had reportedly prevented some students and faculty from entering buildings and engaged in property damage.

The Daily Northwestern reported the details of the deal and noted

“the University has committed to provide a conduit for students to engage with the Investment Committee of the Board of Trustees. It will also re-establish an Advisory Committee on Investment Responsibility this fall, which will include students, faculty and staff.

...

In addition, the University committed to some support for Palestinian students and faculty in the agreement. NU will ‘support visiting Palestinian faculty and students at risk,’ and will provide the cost of attendance for five Palestinian undergraduates to attend Northwestern.

...

The University also committed to providing an ‘immediate temporary space for MENA/Muslim students’ — a longtime demand from students on campus — and will provide and renovate a house for MENA/Muslims students as soon as possible. The final house is expected to come in 2026.”

It also includes a commitment of the university to intervene with employers to guarantee that students suffer no consequences for participating in protests in their jobs and internships.

Northwestern (my alma mater) has always chosen the path of least resistance when it comes to protesters, including at times surrendering core academic functions. I have been particularly critical of the loss of freedom of speech and academic integrity on campus.

Students previously succeeded in cancelling a speech by former U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Student Zachery Novicoff embodied the rising intolerance to free speech on campus. He is quoted as saying “There’s a limitation to free speech. That ends at overtly racist old white dudes.”

I criticized former Northwestern University President Morton Schapiro for his lack of support for free speech on campus. Schapiro denounced what he called “absolute” free speech positions and endorsed speech sanctions, including treating speech as a form of assault.

During his tenure, the university often seemed a mere pedestrian to mob action taken against dissenting voices. For example, we previously discussed a Sociology 201 class by Professor Beth Redbird that examined “inequality in American society with an emphasis on race, class and gender.”  To that end, Redbird invited both an undocumented person and a spokesperson for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement.  It is the type of balance that is now considered verboten on campuses.

Members of MEChA de Northwestern, Black Lives Matter NU, the Immigrant Justice Project, the Asian Pacific American Coalition, NU Queer Trans Intersex People of Color and Rainbow Alliance organized to stop other students from hearing from the ICE representative.  However, they could not have succeeded without the help of Northwestern administrators (including  Dean of Students Todd Adams).  The protesters were screaming “F**k ICE” outside of the hall.  Adams and the other administrators then said that the protesters screaming profanities would be allowed into the class if they promised not to disrupt the class.  Really?  They were screaming profanities and seeking to stop the class but would just sit nicely as the speaker answered questions?

Of course, that did not happen. As soon as the protesters were allowed into the classroom, they prevented the ICE representative from speaking.  The ICE official eventually left and Redbird canceled the class to discuss the issue with the protesters that just prevented her students from hearing an opposing view.

The comments of the Northwestern students were predictable after being told by people like Schapiro that some offensive speech should be treated as a form of assault.  SESP sophomore April Navarro rejected that faculty should be allowed to invite such speakers to their classrooms for a “good, nice conversation with ICE.” She insisted such speakers needed to be silenced because they “terrorize communities” and profit from detainee labor. Here is the face of the new generation of censors being shaped by speech-intolerant academics like Schapiro:

“We’re not interested in having those types of conversations that would be like, ‘Oh, let’s listen to their side of it’ because that’s making them passive rule-followers rather than active proponents of violence. We’re not engaging in those kinds of things; it legitimizes ICE’s violence, it makes Northwestern complicit in this. There’s an unequal power balance that happens when you deal with state apparatuses.”

Last year, the Northwestern student body banned press from meetings to protect students from the harm of media coverage. The students also have previously frozen funds of conservative groups.

The Northwestern journalism faculty is little better.  Steven Thrasher, the Daniel H. Renberg Chair of social justice in reporting at Northwestern, who trashed a reporter who waited for the facts before reporting on a police shooting.

Of course, it is not just conservative speakers that the students want to ban. In 2021, they called for the removal of the President of the Board of Trustees. Despite being a major donor and supporter of the school, J. Landis Martin was denounced as a Republican who donated money to former President Donald Trump.

The university issued a statement that “This path forward requires the immediate removal of tents on Deering Meadow, cessation of non-approved use of amplified sound and a commitment that all conduct on Deering and across campus will comply with all University rules and policies. Compliant demonstration can continue at Deering Meadow through June 1.”

The university has long lacked the fortitude to stand up to students engaging in disruptive protests.

The danger of such passivity is evident on our campuses. As Henry David Thoreau warned, “all rivers and most corrupt men follow the path of least resistance.”

Here is the Northwestern agreement.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/path-least-resistance-northwestern-reaches-controversial-settlement-pro-palestinian