US College campuses are too often an environment of intolerance, parochialism, and outright hate

Great Debates
1

This opinion piece from the CBC’s website (by Neil MacDonald) neatly summarizes some very nasty developments that have taken place recently on some US college campuses. In fact, “developments” may not be the best choice of words; it’s been happening for some time now. What’s new is the extent of the “development”.

I am referring to, and the MacDonald article is focusing on, what is effectively the ‘banning’ of various speakers from US college campuses. Okay, “banning” is too strong and frankly inaccurate, I will admit. But what verb does one use when individuals of world-class intellect are pre-emptively shouted off campus because of the opinions they hold (and, what may be worse, when college administrators kowtow to those who would censor ideas, views, and opinions with which they disagree)?

MacDonald lists three recent examples - Condoleezza Rice being ‘uninvited’ from Rutgers, IMF Director and former French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde compelled to withdraw from her speaking date at Smith, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali ‘unwelcomed’ at Brandeis (to be fair, Ali was supposed to receive an honorary degree, but my point still holds).

MacDonald also draws attention to a closely related embarrassment at Haverford where former Berkeley Chancellor and erstwhile MIT Dean of Science Robert Birgeneau was told that unless he agreed in advance to a shopping list of student demands (humiliating on multiple levels) the commencement speech he had been invited to deliver would be met with their fierce protests. Birgeneau, to use MacDonald’s words, “demurred and withdrew”.

As I said above, this is actually nothing new. What’s different is the extent of the practice and that the targets are no longer only Israeli, or ‘Israel-friendly’ speakers, it’s now happening to just about anyone the campus denizens would rather not hear. Never mind the speaker’s academic accomplishments or intellectual prowess. If a guest speaker or lecturer is not gonna tell them what that want to hear, not only don’t they want to hear, they’re gonna make sure no one else does either.

The irony is thick but apparently invisible or immaterial to the ones who would best profit from acknowledging it.

Almost forgot. The ‘debate’, since someone will surely ask, is whether I am exaggerating the sorry state of things.

2

Yes. Describing political protests and demonstrations as intolerance and hate is exaggerating.

3

I saw the article.
My reaction was that the current generation, like all preceding ones, needs Great Causes.

Among the current Great Causes is protecting Correct Thought, and it’s a slippery slope indeed to decide what Correct Thought is.

They’ll have fun with it; eventually join the work force, and realize that the intensity of college debate over Correct Thought has little to do with working for a living and being productive.

But yes, the Closing of the American Mind is unfortunate and unsettling. On the right and the left I see the strategy being moved from “Let’s listen” toward “You are hateful and I will protect the world from your incorrect thoughts” if you disagree with me, and so I’m not going to listen to you, nor am I going to allow others to be poisoned by your Bad Think.

Condoleezza is a Liar? Can’t she just be wrong?

In the end, we’ll muddle through though.

College professors and their nitwit students will remain college professors and nitwits. Both are isolated from the real world and have the luxury of thinking they have sorted out Correct Thought. I’m not sure that’s new.

4

Yes, people like Joe McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover were known for their commitment to open-minded debate.

5

Doubt anyones actually compiled statistics, but I don’t think this is a particularly new thing. This article gives a couple examples from the 80’s. And generally it seems every spring for as long as I remember has featured a few stories about students protesting this or that commencement speaker.

It’s a little silly, maybe, but the speakers are usually paid out of student fees (often pretty generously), so I can’t really blame students for protesting their money going to give someone they dislike at a venue.

(I went to a few “big name” talks when I was in college, and generally just found it a pointless waste of money regardless of who was talking. Most speakers phone it in and collect their checks, and they all have pretty prominent venues already if your interested in what they have to say. You don’t really need to pay half-a-million dollars to find out what Bill Clinton thinks about policy issues, for example. You can just watch him on TV).

6

Based on my observers, I have come to the opinion that the only why to find a commencement speaker that no one is going to protest over would be the wheel in life-size C3-PO figure and just leave it at the podium for 15 minutes. Scratch that I am sure some of the other science fiction fandoms might complain that we are ignoring Trekkies or Doctor Who.

7

I’m not sure of your point…
If it’s that there are no standards for correctness of thought, well we’ve probably had that debate.
If it’s that many in positions of influence and power have tried to promote their ideals unilaterally, I agree.
If it’s that some of those influencers are assholes, I agree with that too.
If it’s that times and behaviour don’t really change at some fundamental level, I’m still with you. Humans are humans.

If it’s that Condoleezza Rice and Joe McCarthy are about on par with (almost any parameter of how to approach leadership and thought), I think such an (implied ? ) comparison is inane to the point where I’m not sure I’d bother to debate it.

Bringing up McCarthy in a Correct Think debate feels like the guy who can’t wait to pull in Hitler whenever the topic is genetics. They aren’t irrelevant but why the name-dropping bazooka instead of a debate on the merits of the point?

8

My point is that your claim about the narrowing mind sounds like BS because there’s a long history of people denouncing their political opponents as not only wrong, but dangerous. That existed long before McCarthy and it still exists today. If you believe it’s more prevalent today because of, say, Twitter, I’ll go ahead and say it might be easier to find examples of this view being expressed, but I don’t think it’s more prevalent.

9

US College campuses are too often an environment of intolerance, parochialism, and outright hate

Oh, I thought you were talking about Bob Jones and Liberty U…:smiley:

Really, I think your OP and the article linked within are over-blown and making broad generalizations.

There are public figures who are recognized as being very polarizing, what did the administrators expect when they chose a polarizing public figure?

10

When I was in college, we had a ton of speakers come to campus and express views that were unpopular to many (sometimes most) of the student body and faculty. In fact, I invited one such speaker myself. Sometimes there were protests, but everyone was allowed to speak, and generally we learned something, (even if we didn’t change our opinion of the speaker or their views) However, I think giving an honorary degree is a completely different thing. Students, faculty and staff are well within their rights (I’d say obligation) to protest the award of an honorary degree to someone like Judge Bybeefor example, or even Secretary Rice. .

It’s ironic that the speaker that brought the most protest to our little secular campus was a Jewish man who came to speak about Palestinian rights. This was back in the early 1980s and there were many on campus who objected to the very idea of advocating for the Palestinians, or, as they put it, “attacking Israel.”

Anyway, I think the recent (and longstanding) controversies over commencement speakers and honorary degrees does not necessarily mean there is a general attitude of intolerance of campuses. It may exist, but the recent examples don’t establish it.

11

Almost every commencement speaker receives an honorary degree–which would have included both Rice and Lagarde. You might invite, I don’t know, Ahmadinejad to speak on campus, but you wouldn’t give him an honorary degree. That seems perfectly fine to me.
Of course one’s own values, and the values of one’s institution, should play a role in the selection of whom that institution chooses to honor.

12

Everyone has the right to disagree, but no one has the right to spread hate. Anyone who disagrees with me is spreading hate.

Regards,
Shodan

13

It depends on their content; a Klan demonstration would qualify, an antiwar demonstration would not.

14

These speakers weren’t “banned” they were “shunned”. And they weren’t shunned for things they SAID, they were shunned for things they DID. The students are arguing that the past actions of these individuals make them unworthy of the honor of addressing the university. They have behaved badly and made bad choices and as a result are unwelcome.

The attempt to reframe this position as a free speech issue is a red herring. These powerful individuals were not invited to campus to engage in open debate with their critics. They were being given an open microphone to say whatever they pleased to a captive audience. The students rightly recognized that such a forum has the effect of validating these individual’s past actions. And they objected to it.

15

I hate people who do that.

16

So, basically, at future commencement addresses, there will be no more politicians, or in fact, anyone who’s ever represented any government, or the military, or any other institution that may have done something deemed ‘evil’ by someone. That leaves who? Entertainers, scientists, . . . But wait, entertainer X offended that group in the comedy sketch he performed last year, and that scientist used to work for Dow, and well, we all know about Dow, and that mathematician was rumoured to work for the NSA, . . .

Sporting stars have a good future in more ways than one, it seems.

17

It looks to me like your examples are all relating to commencement speeches or honorary degrees. I don’t think it’s out of line for students to have their commencement speaker be someone they give a shit about.

18

Whee, making up examples and then shooting them down is fun. You know that commencement speakers do not have to withdraw just because someone is protesting, right?

19

I think you are correct and now, realizing that, I would rephrase my OP rather differently. My error.

That said, much of my sentiment noting intolerance, narrow-mindedness, and the like, still applies. Indeed, one expects to find more tolerance on a university campus than in almost any other place, not less.

20

Rice and Lagarde withdrew because they didn’t want to be criticized or because they thought the criticism would be distracting. But I’m not sure why that puts the onus on the people protesting. Surely neither of them can be shocked that some students would protest their presence–both have been protested many times before, by exactly that demographic.

If Joe Biden is invited to be honored at Notre Dame or Donald Rumsfeld is invited to be honored at Yale, both should expect some level of student opposition, which is how it should rightly be. That doesn’t mean government officials can’t give commencement speeches (though that may have sounded like a much worse parade of horribles in your head than it would be in real life). It means that they need to be prepared to speak knowing that some portion of students are likely to have strong disagreements with them, and may be disinvited if that sentiment becomes strong enough that the institution no longer feels like it can honor the speaker.