Truth has nothing to fear.
Over dinner Sunday night, I dove headlong into a critical discussion of the current administration at my undergraduate alma mater. My companion in the conversation was a fellow alum and also teaches as an adjunct at my current university, and he was a few decades older than I.
As we talked about all the people we know near the foothills of the Ozarks, I suggested two reasons for my frustration with the current administration, and the first is the unfortunate public alignment with a single political party and ideology. My friend was stumped and wondered why I thought it was a bad idea for our alma mater to declare its partisan preference. I responded with a bit of discourse on the ethic of academic freedom and the practical effect that this alignment will have on faculty and student recruiting and fund-raising over the long-run.
He gave two responses in common apology for the University's public declaration of political preference: 1. It will comfort the conservatives, even if it alienates the liberals. 2. It provides some sort of national balance to the liberal academy. I suggested that such a national balance does nothing to serve the students who do not get to attend 10 colleges at once. He said that in his experience, well stuff that he had read, that most "state schools" and other universities actively discriminate against conservatives. I explained that my other school, a top-20 national, secular school, did quite a good job of welcoming all points of view, so long as the proponent could articulate a decent basis for thought.
Against this backdrop, I enjoyed this post from Concurring Opinions, but I sat perplexed at Columbia's invitation and subsequent bumrush of the Iranian President.
I will admit that while applauding Columbia's invitation, I did not feel at ease with the introduction by Professor Bollinger which was, at best, not hospitable.
That is, until I read this statement announcing and describing the event, issued last week, days before the event. As it turns out, Columbia told the Iranians precisely what to expect, left no question about the university's intent. Columbia invited the man to answer charges, and to his credit, he showed up. Columbia invited him to a dialogue about his claims and positions, guaranteed that the University would challenge and criticize and required that at least half of the event must be answers to student questions.
This is the high function of a university, to invite, demand and guarantee the inquiry.
I hope that my alma mater will heed Columbia's courage and moxie to invite an unpopular speaker onto its campus, to extend an invitation to an opposing point of view, to offer its stage for a controversial idea. The central function of a university is to explore and relish the criticsm of ideas, not to shield students from a disfavored point of view.
As we talked about all the people we know near the foothills of the Ozarks, I suggested two reasons for my frustration with the current administration, and the first is the unfortunate public alignment with a single political party and ideology. My friend was stumped and wondered why I thought it was a bad idea for our alma mater to declare its partisan preference. I responded with a bit of discourse on the ethic of academic freedom and the practical effect that this alignment will have on faculty and student recruiting and fund-raising over the long-run.
He gave two responses in common apology for the University's public declaration of political preference: 1. It will comfort the conservatives, even if it alienates the liberals. 2. It provides some sort of national balance to the liberal academy. I suggested that such a national balance does nothing to serve the students who do not get to attend 10 colleges at once. He said that in his experience, well stuff that he had read, that most "state schools" and other universities actively discriminate against conservatives. I explained that my other school, a top-20 national, secular school, did quite a good job of welcoming all points of view, so long as the proponent could articulate a decent basis for thought.
Against this backdrop, I enjoyed this post from Concurring Opinions, but I sat perplexed at Columbia's invitation and subsequent bumrush of the Iranian President.
I will admit that while applauding Columbia's invitation, I did not feel at ease with the introduction by Professor Bollinger which was, at best, not hospitable.
That is, until I read this statement announcing and describing the event, issued last week, days before the event. As it turns out, Columbia told the Iranians precisely what to expect, left no question about the university's intent. Columbia invited the man to answer charges, and to his credit, he showed up. Columbia invited him to a dialogue about his claims and positions, guaranteed that the University would challenge and criticize and required that at least half of the event must be answers to student questions.
This is the high function of a university, to invite, demand and guarantee the inquiry.
I hope that my alma mater will heed Columbia's courage and moxie to invite an unpopular speaker onto its campus, to extend an invitation to an opposing point of view, to offer its stage for a controversial idea. The central function of a university is to explore and relish the criticsm of ideas, not to shield students from a disfavored point of view.