That’s a statement, not a question.
Here a few examples of what Pres. Obama is talking about.
A student at Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis found a student guilty of racial harassment for reading a book on his work break entitled Notre Dame vs. the Klan. The book was a historical account of student opposition to a Klu Klux Klan march at Notre Dame in 1924. The book was entirely in praise of the student’s efforts to resist the message of the Klan, but pictures of the KKK rally on the front cover offended some of the student’s co-workers and the student was formally found guilty by the college of racial harassment. The letter of reprimand he received stated: “You used extremely poor judgment by insisting on openly reading the book related to a historically and racially abhorrent subject in the presence of your black co-workers."
Mahmood, a writer for the University of Michigan student newspaper wrote an obviously satirical piece making light of all of what he saw as oversensitivity to microaggressions and triggers. He was fired from his job and later the door at his campus house was vandalized and posted with all kinds of notes including, (ironically) a note stating “Everyone hates you!”
University of St. Thomas a planned event at which people were going to be allowed to pet a camel was cancelled when a group created a Facebook page protesting the event for animal cruelty, for being a waste of money, and for being insensitive to people from the Middle East.
In 2013 students at UCLA staged a sit-in in a professor’s class because he had noted in feedback on a paper that a particular word should not be capitalized and the student took offense and claimed that this was disrespecting the importance she placed on that idea and the role it played in her identity.
5 Likes
I find what you say here quite reasonable and agree with a good deal of it. However, I put the white supremacist movement about half a peg below the NAMBLA people. Seriously, we already know their stances of race and a few other topics. They never change and they are vile. I don’t believe they would add one ounce of anything positive to the discussion. Otherwise, I think you’ve hit a couple nails on the head.
2 Likes
Free speech from the conservative perspective:
http://freakoutnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Trump-Iowa-620x519.jpg
http://freakoutnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Trump-guard.jpg
If Obama is for listening to conservative speakers, you can bet your ___ that conservatives will be against it.
3 Likes
Classic. This confirms what Nat Hentoff wrote about. Free speech for me. but not for thee.
4 Likes
Its hypocritical to ban conservative speakers, but Ann Coulter should be banned because you disagree with her viewpoints? (I do, too…quite strongly). I get the feeling that hypocritical means something different to you than it does rest of us.
She is a “bomb-thrower for money” but so is basically every public speaker at a campus. If they are not being paid directly for their show, they are hawking a book. Its quite literally called the college speaking circuit for a reason. I mean G. Gordon Liddy and Timothy Leary had an entire tour built around the two of them speaking together at college campuses…entirely for the money.
1 Like
I disagree with the President on two points. When a speaker is being paid more than travel and a nominal fee from tuition money then students have a right to say that they do not want their funds used for propaganda purposes. If the speaker will appear at an event that a student feels he must attend (graduation, etc…) then students have a right to protest.
The value of the open exchange of ideas at universities is incredibly important and has been used to protect plenty of leftist academics over the years.
Conservative speakers are, in general, ridiculously easy to rebut. So let them have their say (without paying them an insane honorarium for showing up please), then cut their arguments to rhetorical ribbons. Not that hard.
3 Likes
You know, I would be more willing to believe these examples if they were given a source via a URL.
I agree with your post. All speakers should/must, however, agree to an open forum for a reasonable timeframe with the students where the tone is to be commensurate with that of the speech given. The speaker should not have veto power over the questioners or topic, so long as the topic was discussed in the speech. I believe this would be fairer to all involved.
3 Likes
The statements about how its a conservative lie that campuses are intolerant are ignorant. Most comedians avoid campuses. You cannot tell a joke these days without a lawsuit complaining how you are disrespecting someone, how you are not honoring their heritage, blah blah blah. And the absolute bullshit of “microaggressions” is totally insane. A “microaggression” is basically “you do something I don’t like, and I blame you for my feeling of discomfort”. Now we have the whole “trigger warnings” insanity, where people are blaming professors for making them uncomfortable. Remember, if you have to think, and if your assumptions are questioned, this may be grounds for a lawsuit, on some campuses.
Pretty much the academy is dead, really. Can you imagine Socrates on today’s campus? His ass would be sued 6 ways from Sunday. After all, making students think, getting them to question their assumptions, that is all totally like way nazi, eh, bro?
3 Likes
You may or may not have been on campuses lately. The way it works is this: Some student organization is in charge of inviting speakers. You, as a student, can join that group. However, most students do not want to actually do work and attend meetings. So, rather than putting in their opinion at a meeting, they protest the selection. If you wish to influence the selection, join the appropriate group, attend meetings, and vote for speakers. Note: the democratic process suggests that you may get outvoted.
2 Likes
Where does he say they don’t have a right to protest?
2 Likes
He never said they shouldn’t protest. He said they shouldn’t be coddled from hearing different points of view, that they should debate these points of view as a means of opening discourse and - echoing Bernie from yesterday - finding common ground.
3 Likes
I don’t think he’s disagreeing with students’ right to protest certain speakers. I think he’s referring to the decisions some schools have made recently to dis-invite speakers because of student protests. Re your examples of Coulter and Palin as compared to McConnell and Boehner, I think it’s pretty easy to discern the difference between the first two (deliberately inflammatory and partisan to the exclusion of considering alternate points of view (unless it’s to mock them)) and the last two (partisan, yes, but with an eye to having to actually accomplish something–which means at least having to take into account the Democrats).
3 Likes
All of those examples are easy to find in google - and, importantly, are not only on conservative sources. Here’s one:
2 Likes
I think a line should be drawn where identified hate is involved, i.e. someone from a recognized hate group. No, colleges shouldn’t allow grand wizards (or whatever the fuck those lunatics call themselves) of the KKK or members of the Westboro Baptist Church come speak because those are recognized hate groups. But yes, allow people with opposing viewpoints - even Ann Coulter - to come speak and then allow the students to debate them. If Ann Coulter, or whichever speaker is there, does not behave with decorum and acts in a juvenile manner to those young minds attempting to have an open discourse with her, then she doesn’t get invited back, simple as that. But we must allow for an attempt at finding common ground, even if only on a singular issue. And yes, people should also be allowed to protest, because that is a form of free speech as well. That protesting just shouldn’t be a reason for speakers not to come.
Btw, if a group of protesting students causes a speaker to back out of talking, as opposed to the school cancelling due to protests, then the speaker was obviously not worth the time anyway. If they believe in their ideas, then they should be willing to talk about them in the face of opposition, like Senator Sanders yesterday.
1 Like
For the most part, I agree. One point where we differ - I don’t believe hostility is required, just open, honest questions. No need to be hostile. Open discourse is what’s missing from this country nowadays and hostility won’t bring it back. But yes, I absolutely agree that question and answer sessions should be a part of these appearances.
2 Likes
I had to do a double take there Arc…