Gonzaga University blocks Ben Shapiro speech, citing ‘Jesuit’ values

[dvdjs]

Yes you did.

What I said is a matter of fact, not a matter of opinion.

 

[Cathoholic]

dvdjs . . .

What other speakers were blocked this administration of Gonzaga?

Your argument SUPPORTING Gonzaga is predicated on all this havoc elsewhere at other campuses.

And now you attempt to change the nature of the issue to merely “this administration at Gonzaga” instead of what this administration at Gonzaga is appealing to.

You will have to do that without me dvdjs. I’m not going to waste my time on questions re-framed that way.

 

[dvdjs]

Your argument SUPPORTING Gonzaga is predicated on all this havoc elsewhere at other campuses.

Not at all.
My argument is that they are a private college that has the right to curate material featured at their institution.
I have no reason to disbelieve that their decision is predicated on anything other than what they say is behind their decision…

 

[Cathoholic]

dvdjs . . .

I have no reason to disbelieve that their decision is predicated on anything other than what they say is behind their decision…

Well that’s wonderful dvdjs.

But I DO have “reason” and I have explained it here.

But the point isn’t merely if YOU (or I) “have reason”.

The point is to be aware of this for the reader, and THEY can draw their own conclusions.

 

[JonNC]

I think that you might be unfamiliar with the the community that is formed of tenured faculty at a university.

I think I have a good idea, but that isn’t the point. A university regularly has “invited guests” in their “home”. They are influencing young people.
Your premise allows that influence to be limited to the “family” regardless of their words.
And this is the nature of the banning of Shapiro

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Read their words, dvdjs.

Did their words indicate that they were against Shapiro’s conservatism? No.

They said they had to protect vulnerable people from him. Now, clearly, they didn’t mean he is a violent threat. What do they mean?
The logical inference is they think his policies are unfair and unkind to the vulnerable. This is often said about conservatives.

 

[Ender]

They said they had to protect vulnerable people from him. Now, clearly, they didn’t mean he is a violent threat. What do they mean?
The logical inference is they think his policies are unfair and unkind to the vulnerable. This is often said about conservatives.

The actions taken by Gonzaga, and their justification for taking them, are contrary to their own stated mission and to the mission of a true university. It is immaterial whether everyone on this thread agrees with this or not. The real question is what, if anything, can we do? This problem is not just with Gonzaga; it is becoming more and more prevalent among universities everywhere and it needs to be confronted.

Anyone with a connection with a university ought to insist that that school adopt the Chicago standards regarding who is to be allowed to speak. Anything less is to assent to the eventual elimination of open debate.

Because the University is committed to free and open inquiry in all matters, it guarantees all members of the University community the broadest possible latitude to speak, write, listen, challenge and learn. Except insofar as limitations on that freedom are necessary to the functioning of the University, the University of Chicago fully respects and supports the freedom of all students, faculty and staff “to discuss any problem that presents itself,” free of interference…

Fundamentally, however, the University is committed to the principle that it may not restrict debate or deliberation because the ideas put forth are thought to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed. It is for the members of the University community to make those judgments for themselves.

We can see in the case of Gonzaga, and the arguments of those who support their action, the direct threat to the free exchange of ideas.

 

[dvdjs]

I think I have a good idea, but that isn’t the point. A university regularly has “invited guests” in their “home”. They are influencing young people.
Your premise allows that influence to be limited to the “family” regardless of their words.
And this is the nature of the banning of Shapiro

Sorry, i don;t understand this post.
Universities do have a mission to educate people - of all ages. That mission necessarily involves curation of content, albeit normally with a light touch that is self-regulating. Inappropriate content from faculty should not be disregarded, but should be remedied by actions available to the university. Guests, particularly at private universities, should expect that their welcome is contingent on alignment with university values, policies, and procedures.

According to FIRE, last year, outside speakers were disinvited, through the actions of conservative activists, at Madonna University and Catholic University. These disinvitations did not violate free speech rights, academic freedom, or the mission of these Universities.

 

[dvdjs]

They said they had to protect vulnerable people from him. Now, clearly, they didn’t mean he is a violent threat. What do they mean?

You OP links t an article that includes an image of the President’s letter to the campus that specific refers to Events Policy section a.i.1&2, and 3&4 and makes very clear what the University means.

 

[qui_est_ce]

dvdjs . . .

What other speakers were blocked this administration of Gonzaga?

I’m actually grateful to dvdjs for eliciting such well-informed arguments from posters like you. It’s also been entertaining to see the logical fallacies of some posters’ arguments being exposed.

 

[JonNC]

According to FIRE, last year, outside speakers were disinvited, through the actions of conservative activists, at Madonna University and Catholic University. These disinvitations did not violate free speech rights, academic freedom, or the mission of these Universities.

I never said it was a free speech issue. I’ve said from the start that Gonzaga can do what it wishes.
I oppose it when so-called conservatives do this. It is wrong.

Universities do have a mission to educate people - of all ages. That mission necessarily involves curation of content, albeit normally with a light touch that is self-regulating. Inappropriate content from faculty should not be disregarded, but should be remedied by actions available to the university.

When the administration agrees with the faculty, good luck getting it remedied.
University faculties are almost as one-sided politically as the MSM.
Shame on conservatives for not going into education as much as progressives.

 

[petra22]

Universities do have a mission to educate people - of all ages.

Just having a memory… freshman in college, spreading wings… the college showed free movies on Sunday evenings. Ballad of Ms. Jean Brody and Boys in the Band are two movies that opened my 18 yr old eyes to different sides of life… Is this what you mean by mission to educate the youth whose parents probably would not have approved of either movie???

 

[dvdjs]

Is this what you mean by mission to educate the youth

No, why do you ask?

 

[dvdjs]

It is about speech rights, and the rights of those who do want to hear.

I never said it was a free speech issue.

I am glad that you clarified that, in light of your earlier appeal to speech rights

It is wrong.

I think that it not wrong in principle: every institution inevitably makes decisions on what content is appropriate and what is inappropriate. Universities may err, of course, in execution. But the notion that a “free exchange of ideas” would embrace nonsense as well as sense, name-calling as well as dignity, inflammatory incitement as well as calm discussion, hate as well as love, …, does not strike me as being defensible as anyone’s “right”.

University faculties are almost as one-sided politically as the MSM.

Perhaps. There is a strong empirical correlation between post-graduate education and voting preferences. But the relevance of this is unclear. I think that partisanship would rarely if ever enter into policy making at quality institutions of higher education.

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

They basically said it is because of safety concerns, then said we don’t value the ideas he espouses in the next paragraph.

They’re frauds. And woe to them for pretending to do this in the name of Jesuit values, when as has been pointed out, the school allowed Angela Davis and the Vagina Monologues on campus. Are we too assume that St. Ignatius Loyola was a fan of “monologues” about female anatomy?

Most normal people would agree Shapiro is hardly the strident or offensive speaker out there. For a university to pretend to be Catholic and hide behind those values is pathetic. And for people to rush to their defense instead of saying that “a free exchange of ideas is healthy for growing minds; I think they should allow Shapiro and Davis to present their views” is typical of this board, sadly.

Again, Jesuit values = Vagina Monologues. Tell me again why they are allowed to pretend to be a Catholic university? Thankfully, the Lord knows the truth even if Bishops refuse to defend the faith in these cases.

 

[Cathoholic]

In my opinion, these ideas being claimed as “Jesuit” leads to worse issues.

We have seen some of those “worse issues” that have developed out of these principles of such ideas frequently over the last year or so (in other situations).

And even more recently as well.

WATCH: Female Antifa Member Spits on, Punches Conservative Activist

Police arrested a 19-year-old Antifa protester Saturday for allegedly assaulting conservative activists at Portland's #HimToo rally

www.breitbart.com

.

(Admittedly the above are NOT Gonzaga, but I think the same kind of ideas festering, is responsible for this at least in part.)

These are bad ideas admixed (misusing power to squash public discourse) with a few good ones (at least pretending you want to follow Catholic values), used as a pretext to justify inappropriate behavior.

In this case the inappropriate behavior was banning Mr. Shapiro and shutting down that aspect of public discourse.

And again in my opinion, this was politically motivated.

 

[Ender]

(Admittedly the above are NOT Gonzaga, but I think the same kind of ideas festering, is responsible for this at least in part.)

It flows from the same mindset: the desire to prohibit the expression of opinions of which they disapprove, and the willingness to do whatever is necessary to accomplish that goal.

 

[JonNC]

I am glad that you clarified that, in light of your earlier appeal to speech rights

I’m sorry you didn’t see the difference. Gonzaga is a private university. On that private property, they can determine who enters and who speaks.
So, I said , It is about speech rights, and the rights of those who do want to hear. because Gonzaga decided to limit speech rights, well within their rights to do so. So while the university has the power to limit speech in its campus, it is still a limit of speech rights.

The reason it is not a free speech issue is because what Gonzaga did does not violate the constitution. Hence, it isn’t an issue in that way.

I think that it not wrong in principle : every institution inevitably makes decisions on what content is appropriate and what is inappropriate. Universities may err, of course, in execution. But the notion that a “free exchange of ideas” would embrace nonsense as well as sense, name-calling as well as dignity, inflammatory incitement as well as calm discussion, hate as well as love, …, does not strike me as being defensible as anyone’s “right”.

It depends on what one views as nonsense. I think the very notion of single payer healthcare is nonsense, but I don’t think a proponent of such nonsense should be restricted from speaking about it on college campuses.
A person who believes in banning and confiscating civilian rifles (and threatening violence on those who resist ), is far more inflammatory and inciting than Ben Shapiro, but I’m sure Swalwell would be welcome on campus at Gonzaga, and I would defend that choice, not because I agree with his fascistic idea, but precisely because I don’t.

 

[petra22]

I think that partisanship would rarely if ever enter into policy making at quality institutions of higher education.

This thought you have should be the standard at all institutions of higher education…

 

[dvdjs]

… it is still a limit of speech rights.

The reason it is not a free speech issue is because what Gonzaga did does not violate the constitution. Hence, it isn’t an issue in that way.

I still don’t understand what you mean bey “speech rights” outside of the constitution and aobutside of what the institution is clearly permitted to do? What is this “right”?

It depends on what one views as nonsense.

Please, not just “nonsense”; I also mentioned also, name-calling, inflammatory, and hate. The passage that I quoted about the Berkeley speech is enough, IMO, for responsible parties to say no: these are not “ideas” consistent with the mission and practice of higher education, and that not offering him a platform does not limit the free exchange of ideas on a meaningful way. Others may fall into the same category, and if the responsible parties judge that they do, I think that they should be treated the same way.