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.
posted by JRB at 12:12 AM
8 Comments:
It is great to know that we are on the same page. Here is the sad part unless I missed it: The media failed to address Bollinger's treatment of a guest like you did.
Eddie, it's strange to me that the initial reporting made this sound like an ambush. The statement I read was from a link at the Columbia homepage, so this did not even take much creative journalism.
Kenneth, what's your frequency...is this mic on?...
Open discourse is certainly important. But, discourse, by its nature, requires some level of intellectual responsibility from all the participants.
Case in point: one could invite the Burmese military gang to discuss why shooting unarmed monks makes for acceptable human conduct. But, frankly, its a wasted moment since some views and conduct--no matter how unbridled a forum one gives them--do not warrant such airing.
That's the problem I have with this whole thing: not every idea that a human has deserves an opportunity to be heard...do we really need a debate to conclude that pedophilia is meritless in every way?
Now, yes, this is a delicate line to manuever and must be carefully considered. But, did anybody really think that this Holocaust-denying loon (I mean, really, can anyone who denies the reality of that horror actually possess intellectual rigor) was going to engage in anything other than a publicity stunt?
No, of course not.
This was a two-side publicity stunt. Both ends of the stick disguised their media whoring as an effort at intellectual prowess.
Sad. Extremely so.
Your Daily Sprawl.
I do not deny or apologize for either CU's or MA's agendas beyond free speech and academic freedom and inquiry. Of course they had their own agendas and sought to exploit each other to some extent.
Still, I applaud the event for a few reasons. First, Columbia's program invites virtually every head of state they can get their hands on. This was not a publicity stunt inasmuch as it was part of an ongoing program at the school.
I also appreciate Bollinger's comments that this was not a forum to promote free speech for MA but to exercise the CU community's rights and opportunites to hear and speak. Based on the format of the program, I think CU engineered a nice moment to engage a vicious kook with some exposure to legitimate criticism and protest.
A. Applebaum had a nice piece in Slate arguing that this played right into his hands as he tries to demonstrate that he is the "real democrat" on the world stage. I think that CU gave him a beautiful opportunity to expose himself and the failure of his regime. The contrast between his experience here and at home has demonstrated something very powerful about the state of the Iranian state.
Last, "Betsy," (not mine, yours) the important point of my post was a criticism of HU's awful policy of inviting only Republicans to speak on campus and from black-listing certain prominent church leaders because of their preaching on issues of women, instruments and social justice.
Regarding the inside baseball at Harding, I have no opinion. The Christian college I attended welcomed both Dems and Repubs to campus during my years.
On the other stuff, my primary point is that freedom of speech should not be defined as necessitating that every viewpoint be given a forum.
In this case, I ask of Columbia "What did you really think was going to come of this?"
An open and intelligent discourse on Iranian politics? Persian culture? Theocracy?
All of those would have been extremely important conversations in this day and age.
But, there is nothing--absolutely nothing--in A-Dads past that would give anyone a reasonable belief that he was going to engage in that.
If C.S. Lewis were alive, the choice would be easy for A-Dad: Liar or Loon.
Indeed, had Columbia been interested in these important conversations, there are many top Iranian leaders who would have fit the bill.
But, none of them would have received coverage from Daily Kos to the Drudge Report.
Anywho, agree to disagree, I suppose.
"I hope that my alma mater will heed Columbia's courage and moxie to invite an unpopular speaker onto its campus"
Ladies and Gentlemen, please welcome to the Bensen stage Ms. Ann Coulter.
I think ultimately the CU appearance was a coup for Amahdinejad back at home. From what I understand the CU appearance was spun up by supportive Iranian press as a show of support for Amahdinejad. That is unfortunate for sure. However, the Iranian President has a world view that is accepted as valid by some (admittedly, it is a small minority). It is a world view that needs to be refuted. Shutting him off from open discourse does not refute him. In fact I think it makes us seem like we are afraid of what he has to say. As Jeff has already pointed out "truth has nothing to fear."
I graduated Harding thirty five years ago and though I enjoyed and cherish the experience overall, I'm glad my sons chose not to go. There was an air of idealogical repression there. In fact there was quite a faculty exodus after my freshman year. My calculus teacher, one of those who left for Pepperdine, made only one comment about the situation as I can recall. He stated that he realized that it was possible that he might five years hence find that he had changed his mind on some things. That was a revolutionary thought for those days when we, and only we, had the unchanging truth. I don't care for the fact that Harding, if I've been informed correctly, only has speakers from one idealogical stripe. If Columbia is the same way that is bad too.
Post a Comment
<< Home