>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
Craven responded immediately and firmly: “Yeah, because they would get rid of these rapists and murderers that killed American women,” drawing attention to her sign as she spoke.
This is where the conversation takes its first odd turn. The student fired back: “So, are all of the immigrants that come into America rapists and killists?”
“Killists”? “Killists“??? One might hope this was a slip of the tongue, but regardless, Craven maintained her composure and replied simply: “Nope.”
“Okay, so…” the student trailed off.
“So let’s get rid of these ones,” Craven continued, pointing to her poster again. “You agree with that?”
“Yeah,” the student said.
“Okay, so you support ICE removing them,” Craven pressed.
“No.”
At this point, Craven turned to the camera, visibly perplexed, as the conversation became even more surreal. “I support the condemption, as you said, of a rapist,” the student declared, before moving into a tangential discussion on race.
Yowza. “Killist.” “Condemption.” Perhaps unsurprisingly, the rest of the discussion went downhill from there.
When Craven asked the student to name a single racist act committed by President Donald Trump, the student stumbled, growing frustrated when confronted with the fact that Craven is a Trump supporter.
But the ultimate irony? Despite her fierce opposition to ICE, the student couldn’t even articulate what the ICE acronym stands for.
What this clip reveals is a total breakdown in reasoning — a stark example of why logic and critical thinking seem under siege on some college campuses. The student’s position boiled down to something a kindergartner might argue: removing individuals — even those she admitted were deserving of condemnation — is “mean,” and therefore shouldn’t happen.
In a kindergarten classroom, that logic might earn a nod of sympathy. On a university campus, it’s alarming. Higher education is supposed to refine young adults’ ability to reason, not reward emotional reflexes over thoughtful analysis.
The bigger picture here isn’t ICE or immigration. It’s the alarming trend of campuses prioritizing feelings over facts, slogans over substance, and emotional reactions over coherent argumentation. Students agreeing that violent criminals should be condemned but opposing their removal demonstrates not a difference of opinion, but a near-total intellectual short-circuit.
And when asked to provide evidence or examples, the fallback is familiar: vague accusations, emotional deflection, and visible frustration — a pattern increasingly common among young adults trained to assert without defending.
If this clip is any guide, the concern isn’t just what the next generation believes — it’s how they think. And if colleges are producing graduates unable to follow basic logic or defend even a simple position, the problem is far deeper than politics. It’s about whether our educational institutions are still fulfilling their most basic mission: shaping young minds to think critically and independently.
