In an effort to uncover the truth behind university policy, a Project Veritas reporter went incognito at Vassar college. When handed a copy of the constitution, she complained of a panic attack to the Assistant Director of Equal Opportunity.

In response to her ‘complaint’ and ‘pain’: the constitution was shredded.

The Washington Times released an article detailing the issue:

This disdain for the United States Constitution on our college campuses is not only routine, it is unfounded and frightening. The ultimate irony is that the Constitution is the very document which protects the administrator and college student’s liberty to shred it in the first place. Open debate is the foundation of freedom, yet, open debate about the United States Constitution rarely occurs on college campuses, instead it is simply thrown under the rug or trampled on with rhetoric and bias.

And effectively pointed out the truth:

If a citizen doesn’t like something about the United States Constitution then the citizen is empowered, ironically and brilliantly, by the very document itself to amend it.

This enlightenment is to be followed by a reminder that an amendment to the Constitution is always started on a grassroots level and the best way to start the amendment process is by utilizing four out of five of the rights laid out in the first amendment – which are, by the way, protected by the check and balances in Articles I, II and III: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to petition and freedom to assemble.

As American Citizens, we have the right to amend and to impose solutions. Shredding the document which enables us these rights will do absolutely nothing.

Yet, one girl’s negative reaction caused university administration to shred the document which caused such ‘agony’. What does this teach the student– or the campus? That one can simply shred their perceived problems away?

If that is what universities are teaching, our nation is in for a bumpy road.

Read the full article here.

About The Author

Mark was a co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots, and served as the national coordinator. He left the organization to work more broadly on expanding the self-governance movement beyond the partisan divide. Mark appears regularly on television in outlets as diverse as MSNBC, ABC, NBC, Fox News, CNN, Bloomberg, Fox Business and the BBC. He’s highly sought after for the tea party perspective from print and electronic media outlets, from the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, L.A. Times, Washington Examiner, Politico and the The Hill. Mark blogs at, and his opinion editorials regularly run in many of the leading political newspapers both on and offline. Mark has a BA in English from San Diego State University and graduated with honors from University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law in 1988. He practiced real estate and business law for almost a decade. For the last eleven years of his legal career he specialized in Internet advertising law. When not fighting for the future of our nation, Mark is an avid horseman, and lives in rural northern California with his wife Patty and two children.

2 Responses

  1. George McADOO

    The three freedoms you cited as Articles I, II and, III, are all part and parcel to Article I. You have the right intent but, let’s keep it accurate.

  2. Bill Wickline

    I never thought I would appreciate being old. I have regrets for future generations without informed leadership, but at least I do not have much longer to suffer through it.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

five × 3 =