CE Week #5: “Free speech lost on campus”
Cal Thomas
Tribune Media Services
September 26, 2007
I would not be as bothered by Columbia University’s decision to host Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad if Columbia and other universities had a consistent policy toward those they invite to speak and the rules applied equally to conservatives and liberals; to totalitarian dictators and to advocates for freedom and tolerance.
Any conservative who has ever tried, or actually succeeded, in speaking on the campus of predominately liberal academic institutions knows it can resemble to some extent the struggle experienced by African-Americans when they attempted to desegregate lunch counters in the South during the civil rights movement.
In the 1980s, I spoke at universities from Smith College in the East to the University of California at Davis in the West. At Smith, lesbians sat in the front row kissing each other while the rest of the crowd shouted so loud no one could hear me. (NPR’s Nina Totenberg witnessed the riotous behavior, prompting me to remark, “I hope you’re getting this on tape, Nina, because this is what liberals mean by tolerance.”)
Former U.S. News and World Report columnist John Leo has been among the chroniclers of the demise of free speech on many college campuses. Writing in last winter’s issue of the publication City Journal, Leo noted that Columbia University officials prevented a large crowd from hearing Walid Shoebat, a former PLO terrorist who is now an anti-jihadist. The reason given was security, which as Leo pointed out is a frequent excuse for restricting speech. Had Shoebat remained a PLO terrorist, Columbia might have allowed the students in, because anti-Jewish rhetoric of the kind Ahmadinejad delivers always seems welcome on too many campuses. Only Columbia students and 20 guests were allowed to hear Shoebat speak.
Why would Columbia expect Ahmadinejad to answer what they promised in advance would be “tough” questions? Have they not seen him interviewed by America’s best reporters? He doesn’t answer questions. He uses the interviews to lecture America and make his propaganda points. The exercise is useless, except to him because he scores points at home for standing up to “the Great Satan,” or whatever the preferred term du jour for the United States is at the moment.
Last October at Columbia, a mob of students stormed a stage, curtailing speeches by two members of the anti-illegal immigration group known as the Minutemen. The students shouted “They have no right to speak,” which was revealing, given the “academic freedom” argument that is used to defend liberal professors and their frequent anti-American rants when conservatives attempt to shut them up.
As John Leo wrote, “Campus opponents of (Rep.) Tom Tancredo, an illegal immigration foe, set off fire alarms at Georgetown to disrupt his planned speech, and their counterparts at Michigan State roughed up his student backers. Conservative activist David Horowitz, black conservative Star Parker, and Daniel Pipes, an outspoken critic of Islamism, frequently find themselves shouted down or disrupted on campus.” The number of instances involving censorship of conservatives on college campuses and denial of honorary degrees to people who don’t toe the liberal line could fill a book.
There is something else about Columbia’s decision to admit Ahmadinejad and that is the notion that by exposing a tyrant and religious fanatic to a liberal arts campus – a man who believes he has been “called” to usher in Armageddon – might make him less genocidal and students and the rest of us more understanding. We understand he and his legion of murdering thugs wish to kill us and are contributing to the death of Americans in Iraq. What part of mass murder do they not understand at Columbia, or don’t they have time to study history these days?
Ahmadinejad is probably using his visit to case our country, like a bank robber does before a big heist.
Before we allow more of our enemies into America and give them a freedom unknown in their own countries, we should at least demand reciprocity. Their president gets to speak in America? Our president gets to speak in Iran. Their president has access to our media? Our president should have access to their media. And while we’re at it, how about for every liberal who gets to speak on campus, the school must also invite a conservative.
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://pkautzman.edublogs.org/2007/09/27/ce-week-5-free-speech-lost-on-campus/trackback/
It is hard to believe that Columbia University allows Ahmadinejad to speak to their students on the sole basis of him being liberal. Of course, the fact that he is absolutely nuts is easily overlooked. The man denies the Holocaust ever happening and declares Iran’s nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. He has been condemned internationally because he called for Israel to be wiped off the map. I know I wouldn’t choose to listen to a crazy lunatic like Ahmadinejad, let alone pick him over a sane speaker who challenged my school’s beliefs. How is this even a choice to make? Columbia University is dumb. In school, students should be shown all angles. The students from this place are only seeing one side of the story. If students are taught to see the world from all angles, they will have the ability to see things for what they are and form educated opinions. If one opinion is shoved down their throat then what room do they have to think for themselves? I believe in order to form an opinion or belief you should know both sides of the argument to take a stronger position. At the same time I am hearing how we need more well-rounded people in the world, campuses like Columbia are spitting out square after square.
Hey Article-writer:
You’re going after two different groups here and mixing your rhetoric badly. There are 1- the university officials, and 2- the student body. You say that evil liberal Columbia isn’t bringing around enough conservatives for their students to see, but then bring up the examples of the minutemen, and, uh- you. Just because the students stormed the minutemen (seen, for shooting at other people without the will of the governments, as being pretty radical) and just because the lesbo’s tonsil-hockeyed you out of focus doesn’t mean the institution is making wan the freedom of speech; they are presenting you. Also, the students can’t “censor” you, that’s the wrong verb, only the institution could do that. Oh, and, bye the by — wanna’ admit it’s perhaps a little melodramatic (and deeply condescending) to compare the poor response by upper-eschelon students to the actual plight of centuries-repressed African Americans?
Columbia is a private institution, and has the right to give forum to any speaker they want to. Any one person or group– the KKK, the NRA, and the Televangelists– has a right to speak freely in America. To force Columbia to allow a conservative to speak on campus would not only be infringing on Columbia University’s right (or left) to free speech, it would be possibly dangerous. If booing and shouting are the result of a condoned lecture by a conservative, just imagine the outrage if that speech was enforced by state or federal law.
As a private institution, Columbia might not have much choice in the matter– after all, it would be logical to assume that CU is funded by other private, liberal organizations; organizations that might not want to fund a campus that gives a voice to Republican professors, scholars, and politicians. For Columbia, having a fair and balanced representation of the issues is just bad business.
Speaking of bad business, I can’t even speculate to what Columbia University was thinking when they allowed a terrorist to give a lecture on campus, but luckily that’s someone else’s headache entirely. Terrorists shouldn’t be given a podium, or even asylum in this country, and to think anything else then that is crack-smoking stupid. Pray for the children of these people, for they will never have a chance to live a normal life.
The issue I have with this article is not the content, it’s the writer. Statements like, “Had Shoebat remained a PLO terrorist, Columbia might have allowed the students in, because anti-Jewish rhetoric of the kind Ahmadinejad delivers always seems welcome on too many campuses,” what is that about? How can he just make blasphemous statements like that and generalize colleges as well as college students.
Although he gives the example of Columbia not allowing some conservative speakers he neglects to mention any others and mostly just whine about him not being welcomed at liberal colleges.
College is a very interesting time for people, especially politically. At least for me, picking a college means really looking at what it’s going to be like to live there for four plus years and what the atmosphere is going to be like. I don’t want to shell out my life savings, as well as the savings of my parents, grandparents and various dead people (scholarships) to go to a college whose ideals I don’t agree with. What I’m getting at is that you choose your college to reflect your values so obviously if you’re liberal you’re going to go to a more liberal college and enjoy a more liberal setting politically. Thus when someone comes on campus that’s really conservative you’re not going to appreciate it as much and might not even take advantage of seeing them speak at all. It’s immature to sit in the front row and make-out or yell when someone is speaking to you, but they should have seen it coming. A school that’s predominately liberal isn’t the best place for a really conservative speaker, duh.
In his case he seems bitter at the fact that he can’t speak at Columbia and he can’t get an audience at liberal colleges. He should consider the liberals who can’t get appointments with conservative colleges.
Emily,
I do not think this is a huge generalization as you do because I know that college campuses are primarily liberal. Only 15 percent of those teaching at American colleges and universities identify themselves as conservative where 72 percent are liberal. This is even more so at elite schools where the percentages are 13 and 87. “There was no field we studied in which there were more conservatives than liberals or more Republicans than Democrats. It’s a very homogenous environment, not just in the places you’d expect to be dominated by liberals.” – Robert Lichter, a professor at George Mason University. So there are no liberals who can’t get appointments with conservative colleges to consider because there are none. He is not whining about not being welcomed at liberal colleges, he just thinks it’s crap that people are so close minded. I thought college was a time to explore different possibilities. It sounds more like brainwashing to me. How are schools getting away with being completely liberal when the rest of the country is more divided than ever?
Re: Stefanie’s post
“It is hard to believe that Columbia University allows Ahmadinejad to speak to their students on the sole basis of him being liberal. Of course, the fact that he is absolutely nuts is easily overlooked. The man denies the Holocaust ever happening and declares Iran’s nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. He has been condemned internationally because he called for Israel to be wiped off the map.”
They didn’t necessarily invite Ahmadinejad because he was liberal. Columbia invited him because he is one of the most controversial figures in today’s world. The media storm over this is huge, and Columbia University is attracting a lot of attention for it.
“I know I wouldn’t choose to listen to a crazy lunatic like Ahmadinejad, let alone pick him over a sane speaker who challenged my school’s beliefs. How is this even a choice to make?”
A lot of people are fascinated by Ahmadinejad simply because of his crazy opinions. As far as comparing that to inviting conservatives to the university, Luke is right in that Columbia can invite any speaker to the forum. Where many left-leaners would essentially ignore the speeches of conservatives, Ahmadinejad at least commands some interest. A possible reason Columbia doesn’t invite more conservatives: because the college is on the opposite side of the political spectrum, the student body can actually become angered by such debates. The article mentioned a negative response at Smith to the conservative speaker. The truth is that most of the students probably wouldn’t take too kindly to change anyways, having already established that they are of liberal opinion. .In this case, Columbia may be correct in not inviting many conservatives, if there is to be open discussion. Ahmadinejad is certainly controversial, but he will be listened to simply because he is so different.
“Columbia University is dumb. In school, students should be shown all angles. The students from this place are only seeing one side of the story. If students are taught to see the world from all angles, they will have the ability to see things for what they are and form educated opinions. If one opinion is shoved down their throat then what room do they have to think for themselves? I believe in order to form an opinion or belief you should know both sides of the argument to take a stronger position. At the same time I am hearing how we need more well-rounded people in the world, campuses like Columbia are spitting out square after square.”
Again, Columbia has a loooong tradition of being liberal. Students come to Columbia because they are liberal, or at least tend toward that sort of political opinion. Students don’t attend Columbia and automatically become liberal. A conservative student starting at Columbia would face being a small minority against a custom older than they are. It’s just the type of student that Columbia tends to attract.
It is true that the university is being one-sided in who they invite and is pandering to the student body and tradition rather than pushing the envelope. But if you think about it, don’t conservative colleges invite mostly conservatives to speak? There tends to be a slight bias no matter where one attends, so one faces having opinions thrust at them everywhere, especially because it’s college and people are “discovering themselves.” I certainly don’t think that Columbia is unique in its actions.
-C.Rash
I found it extremely odd when I found out that Mahmound Ahmadinejad was speaking at Columbia. Ahmadinejad is a terrorist and wants to kill Americans. Like Stefanie, I find it crazy that a university, liberal or not, would bring a terrorist to their campus. I suppose I do understand why Columbia would bring a terrorist and I disagree with the idea that “Columbia University allows Ahmadinejad to speak to their students on the sole basis of him being liberal.” All universities strive to draw attention to themselves and Ahmadinejad was Columbia’s way of getting noticed. Bringing a terrorist to a university campus for attention still sounds a little ridiculous to me though.
Columbia University, I think, owes it to their students to bring in conservative and liberal speakers. Despite Columbia’s liberal history, the students there need to hear both sides of every story. I do not believe that a person can fully understand their stance without hearing other people’s positions. Also, I would hope that these students would learn to be more respectful to people who do not share their same views. After hearing about how many of the students reacted to some of the speakers, I think they need to learn tolerance. I do not believe that the author, Cal Thomas, was whining about the way he was treated at Columbia. Instead, I believe, that he was demanding that all speakers should be respected relentless of their stances.
Brittany Urso
While I do not necessrily subscribe to Cal Thomas’ belief in “the demise of free speech on many college campuses,” I was interested to note that college students on liberal campuses seem unreceptive to conservative speakers. Because there is almost no way to verify or refute Thomas’ claim, besides asking a frequent college guest speaker, I cannot be sure how much I believe Thomas’ stories of rude behavior. However, for the sake of argument, I will pretend that that part of his opinon is true. I believe students should respect guests of all stripes, though they may applaud more for some than others. Storming the stage or yelling during a presentation is not appropriate, no matter the views of the speaker. There isn’t much the college administrators themselves can do about this, except emphasize the importance of universal respect and tolerance. But whatever the stances of administrators, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that conservative extremists receive negative responses from vocal, liberal college students.
To address the concern that Columbia students should hear “all sides of every story,” I feel I must remind my classmates that university-goers are even older and more mature than we are, in most cases. Students who choose to attend an elite institution like Columbia are hardly impressionable children who take every word spoken to them at face value. They are inquisitive, skeptical, and cynical. They are, like us, part of the generation who prefer news reports from the Daily Show and the Colbert Report over network Nightly News. It is also pertinent to remember that “liberal” and “conservative” are merely adjectives, not concrete policy platforms. A person’s social and political values represent points on a continuum; they are not restricted to the blue box or red box only.
Response:
Luke, I know that Colombia is a private university, but that does not mean that every student that goes there has the same ideas or the same beliefs. They (meaning the people that set up the lectures and interviews and invite speakers), should provide equal opportunity for all points of view, not cater to a rowdy majority who would only listen to another point of view so as to make fun of it. There are conservative thinkers out there. The world’s entire population is not liberal.
Even when these “conservative” lectures are offered, it would not be worth the effort for liberal students to be completely immature to the speaker. Notice, how the writer does not mention inappropriate conduct from conservatives in the audience of a liberal speaker. But in all honesty, the students are not something that can be controlled. It is ultimately their choice of how the speaker is received, and this is what leads to what speakers are invited to speak at the college. Thus, if conservative speakers are booed and disrespected by the majority of the audiences, then it is common sense that it would be liberal speakers invited back. But to bring a terrorist to an American college campus is extreme; it is not like bringing a normal speaker in. It is their choice, but this time, I think that it is not the right one.
~Liz
Hey Jordan:
It is condescending to compare the actual plight of the centuries-repressed African Americans to the actual plight of the three-quarters of a decade repressed Republican party. Playing tonsil hockey and booing down someone who was invited to speak? How can you wave away something that gauche? Follow this logic– Columbia invites Tancredo to speak at their school, and Tancredo agrees. Tancredo speaks, but noone can hear him over the fire-alarm, the booing, and the ruckus caused when Columbia students were roughing up Tancredo’s student supporters. At this point, it is reasonable to call this assembly a protest against a speaker that Columbia is presented. That doesn’t make sense… Why didn’t Columbia hand down some disciplinary action, or supply security to overlook the event? The only logical solution would be that the college supports the students. Luckily, in the Columbia Universe, this logic is pretty basic.
Columbia University is not obligated to let anyone speak at their campus, but if they do, they should all receive the same opportunity to present the lecture as planned, and anything less is censorship. At the least, Columbia isn’t holding their students to a standard befitting college students at other universities.
MSHS’s standard is Dignity, Class, and Respect. Columbia can’t even match a high school in moral standards.
Ok, this guy is definitely on the Conservative boat. However, he does have a point. Before I continue I just want to know how many Conservative colleges treat Liberal speakers the way Liberal colleges treat Conservative speakers, just curious. Anyways I really like what Thomas had to say. It seems like a lot of colleges today claim that they are tolerant of all opinions, ideas, races, religions, and sexes, but this definitely proves all of that wrong. All too often I hear of these types of things. Columbia University is a big one, but other schools definitely follow their behavior; Berkley, UCLA, Princeton, and so many more. This happens a lot. It is truly an outrage. I want to go to a school that promotes diversity, not a school that says it does, but truly hinders it. I think to become more educated, which is the point of college, you need to be exposed to all different types of views. This teaches us to think for ourselves, analyze things, and draw concise conclusions. It makes a great atmosphere for debate, which is also a great way to learn and broaden ones’ horizons. School is about education. It should not be about promoting the “correct” idea at the time. This article simply showed me how stupid the students of these schools are to fall for what the school set up…..indoctrination. And these are supposed to be the new brilliant minds of America? Yeah right!
If a man was going to speak to me about his opinions on anything and started off by saying that he doesn’t think the holocaust happened, or that Iran’s nuclear program has a peaceful purpose; I wouldn’t listen to a word he was saying. Seeing how Ahmadinejad had such a radical opinion on those subjects’ shows that there is something clearly wrong upstairs. It makes me wonder why Columbia University would let such an “odd” person like Ahmadinejad speak in their University.
And I don’t particularly agree with only letting a liberal have the option for public speaking at the college. Whether its private or not that just doesn’t make to much sense to me, I sort of understand why they might have let him speak to show different views but all in the same, if I was there…I wouldn’t be there for very long. But they need to leave the option open for all views to be able to speak, not just the majority. Otherwise that seems to me like they aren’t fully following Freedom of Speech, although they haven’t directly said that they can’t speak, they are implying it pretty well.
~Ryan Brannan
In response to Megan Vertullo,
As far as your question I don’t know exactly, but I do agree with what you had to say about being diverse and understanding different views. Being exposed to different views will teach us how to think for ourselves, it will allow us to decide our views based on views we may have heard that we may agree with or strongly disagree with. It’s something we all need as Americans, sheltering us from views that contradict from our own will only hinder us from being intelligent individuals because we wont learn to think for ourselves and we’ll just “follow the pack”.
Also what you were saying about the “correct” idea, I completely agree. If there was anyone here that had the idea that there is a “correct” idea and “incorrect” idea, just shows how ignorant we can be. Because if we are only exposed to on idea that doesn’t show that it is right, it just shows that we aren’t being exposed to the diversities of the world and are just being stopped from making our own conclusions. If we don’t make our own conclusions about any sort of subject the education system has failed us.
~Ryan Brannan