The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[scaeagles]

I don't believe his past as one of the hostage takers was brought up.

I suppose the one aspect of this that angers me, while what JW said is completely true, is that it becomes a propaganda piece for him. He can pick and choose which parts he wants to use in his own country and in the middle east. Just look at how it was portrayed in the IRanian press. Something tells me his comments about gays and the introductionhe received aren't going to be widely played there, but the parts where the students were clapping for him will be.

Do we not know evil from what he has already said and done, though? What I don't understand is why this man was allowed to speak, but Larry Summers, former president of Harvard who dared suggest that genetic differences between men and women may come in to play regarding the higher number of men successful in the fields of math and science (rather than the politically correct educational bias angle), had a speaking engagement cancelled at UC Davis when the female faculty went nuts about it.

Freedom of speech does not in any way mean freedom to be heard or the right to be provided a forum in which to speak. So I do not see it in any way as a freedom of speech issue.

[Alex]

I'm of the opinion that if Columbia (or some segment thereof) would like to hear him speak and he's willing, that is fine.

What I find interesting, though, is a certain contrast. Last week, Lawrence Summers, former Harvard president and former Secretary of Treasury, was scheduled to give a speech to the University of California board of regents.

An invitation that was rescinded in response to a petition by women's groups offended by a single comment the man once made (that genetic predispositions might play a role in achievement differential at the highest ends of math, science, and engineering).

Obviously, these are different institutions and it can't be a direct comparison of hypocrisy. But my problem with the general claim of "academic freedom," or "exposure to all ideas" is that as a composite community, it is an idea to intermittently held to by academia.

So, yes, Columbia did the right thing. I even think the president's introduction was inappropriate (in timing, not in content). But I'm bothered that when controversies of this sort arise that universities and colleges so rarely seem to do the right thing, especially if the controversial speaker is from the right end of the political spectrum.

[Moonliner]

Universities are not government agencies. They don't need to be consistent or even fair in their decision on speakers. What they need to be is free to decided for themselves who/what should be heard on their campus. If we the people do not agree with their choices then we get to vent about it, withhold our alumni checks, not send our kids there, etc....

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

Universities are not government agencies. They don't need to be consistent or even fair in their decision on speakers. What they need to be is free to decided for themselves who/what should be heard on their campus. If we the people do not agree with their choices then we get to vent about it, withhold our alumni checks, not send our kids there, etc....

I don't suggest that anyone who attempted to prevent him from speaking did anything unconstitutional. But I disagree with the spirit of their protest none-the-less. I understand that a private entity is perfectly entitled to block whomever they feel from using their forum to speak, however as an educational institution I fell universities should hold (not be held to, hold) a higher standard of freedom of expression.

The fact that the prevailing sentiment not just in and around the university, but in the press coverage, is that he shouldn't have been heard bugs me. I see it as yet another symptom of the current fear-driven morality. I'm of the opinion that the message of the first amendment is that words shouldn't be feared, that allowing anyone their voice is of prime importance to freedom. And I find it the height of irony that people were decrying him for his human rights violations while trying to deny him an opportunity to exercise one of his own basic rights. Again, I know it's not unconstitutional, and everyone involved would have been within their rights to deny him. But "allowed to" and "should" are two different things, and trying to silence him sends,in my opinion, the wrong message about who we are as a country.

Akin to my feelings on the "preemptive strike" doctrine. While we're under no obligation to extend our constitutional ideals of "innocent until proven guilty" to the world, when our message is that those ideals are the best way to promote freedom, we should do everything we can to uphold those ideals in everything we do, whether we're obligated to or not.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

Universities are not government agencies. They don't need to be consistent or even fair in their decision on speakers.

Most large universities (such as the University of California) are government agencies. But you're still right.

However, that also means that they can't honestly claim that letting one controversial speaker speak is a matter of intellectual or academic freedom, or offered in the spirit of exposing people to different ideas while denying others the venue because of similar controversy. They should just say "we find these ideas more acceptable to us so we give them more of a platform" if that is the case. Or "Berkeley feminist groups are politically more powerful in the UC system than Jewish groups at Columbia" or whatever the various real reasons are.

The shame I feel for universities is that they ever cave to blocking speakers (and they do it all the time) because some group doesn't like what the speaker will say. Or, even worse, has said some time in the past.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

Universities are not government agencies. They don't need to be consistent or even fair in their decision on speakers. What they need to be is free to decided for themselves who/what should be heard on their campus. If we the people do not agree with their choices then we get to vent about it, withhold our alumni checks, not send our kids there, etc....

Interestingly, this is how it will play out. No one stopped him from speaking or tried to use some legal means to prevent him from being heard.

I've heard it theorized that the reason for the rather scathing introduciton was because of repurcussions from wealthy alumni who said they were going to withhold further contributions should he be allowed a forum from which to speak at Columbia.

I'm still mixed on the whole thing. The man proved himself to be an idiot (for example, about the holocaust, he wanted to know where the dead bodies were, and the more publicized gay comments), but he also gained a huge deal of stature in the Middle East because he dared to go into the "lion's den", as I've read.