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

[JonNC]

JonNC:

LeafByNiggle:

If one is in the habit of speculating on nefarious reasons, he will always find some. Or…one could take them at the word and not assume the Jesuits are doing something nefarious.

I wasn’t talking about the Jesuits, and I’m not the one who said they opposed his speaking for reasons other than politics. …I think they opposed his speaking on purely political grounds. …If you know of another reason than the political ones they mentioned, let us all know. Otherwise, I take them at their word.

Take them at their word. Here is their word:

Which one of these reasons do you call a political reason?

All of them.

• We are committed to the safety and security of all campus events. We do not feel we can guarantee the level of security necessary for all.
  **how is a rather modest-sized Shapiro or his speech a threat to security? It isn’t. **
• Gonzaga University must prevent our campus from becoming a hostile environment for employees and students.
  How does Shapiro making a speech create a hostile environment? He never advocates violence or hostility. Maybe it is his political opponents.
• Mr. Shapiro’s appearances routinely draw protests that include extremely divisive and hateful speech and behavior which is offensive to many people, regardless of their age, politics or beliefs.
  undoubtedly a political statement. How is Shapiro responsible for the divisive and hateful speech and behavior of his political opponents? And why should they have a veto power of his speech or the rights and desires of people who want to hear him?
• Gonzaga University is committed to the human dignity of every individual. This is the core of our mission, based on the teachings of Christ Jesus, and the foundations of the Society of Jesus.
  Specifically, how does Shapiro’s speech contradict these principles?
• We stand in solidarity with vulnerable members of our community who may be targeted for discrimination, ridicule, or harassment by others.
  again, more politics. How does Shapiro participate in a targeting of vulnerable members of the community? Who, specifically, does he target in this way? Without a doubt, this is a political statement.
• Gonzaga’s event policy requires us to consider whether an event would pose substantial risk to the safety of any member of our campus community. In light of what has occurred on other campuses, our security team has raised questions about whether we can adequately secure a campus venue.
  Again, how does this guy pose a substantial risk? At which speech has he or his attendees participated in violence?

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

So, yes, you think colleges shouldn’t allow the free exchange of ideas

I misread your post. I mean to say I am for the free exchange of ideas in college.

Understood.

I’m speculating that Shapiro is being denied because his chosen profession is based upon his speech being polemic and “entertaining”, therefore lacking in substance and seriousness. I don’t think it has anything to do with him being conservative.

Yet this is precisely the opposite. It states that the free exchange of ideas depends on someone’s opinion of the worthiness of the speaker. That’s not a free exchange of ideas.
If one listens to Shapiro, one would not believe for a moment that he isn’t substantial or serious.

 

[JonNC]

I would defend in a heartbeat her right to speak , regardless of the fact that I find her message repulsive.

 

[JonNC]

Didn’t Justice Kavanaugh attend a Jesuit school? Why wasn’t this a problem during the hearings? And why didn’t he hold back on calling those opposed to him lefties? I’ve been around the traditionalist ranks long enough to realize something doesn’t add up here.

How is a high school kid responsible for the political views of the school administrators?

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Yet this is precisely the opposite. It states that the free exchange of ideas depends on someone’s opinion of the worthiness of the speaker.

I suppose it does to some extent. I wouldn’t necessarily want to hear a plumber’s opinion on carpet installation. But there also may be limitations due to things like security, as in Gonzaga’s case.

If one listens to Shapiro, one would not believe for a moment that he isn’t substantial or serious

Apparently, he is good at what he does.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

JonNC:

LeafByNiggle:

If one is in the habit of speculating on nefarious reasons, he will always find some. Or…one could take them at the word and not assume the Jesuits are doing something nefarious.

I wasn’t talking about the Jesuits, and I’m not the one who said they opposed his speaking for reasons other than politics. …I think they opposed his speaking on purely political grounds. …If you know of another reason than the political ones they mentioned, let us all know. Otherwise, I take them at their word.

Take them at their word. Here is their word:

Which one of these reasons do you call a political reason?

All of them.

Your comments challenge the validity of these reasons, not the reasons Gonzaga had for giving them. I know you disagree with Gonzaga on things like whether Shapiro’s presence really would be a security threat, but that is the reason they gave, and the reason itself is not political. What you are really hinting at is that Gonzaga is untruthful in giving the reasons they gave, and their real reasons are actually political. It is an interesting speculation, but you said you would take them at their word. It doesn’t look like you really intend to do that.

 

[Ender]

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

Sadly this may well be true.

 

[ProVobis]

I was referring to the influence of Catholic educators have on their students. Otherwise why send your kids to Jesuits or Holy Cross or Sisters of Providence, for that matter?

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

Their security concern is bogus. Every university that wants to ban a speaker cites “security concerns”. The security concerns, btw, come from left-wing protesters trying to shut down or shout down any event on campus they disagree with. And historically, these haven’t been violent, just loud and annoying. It is preposterous to me that a University should routinely let the threat of the mob dictate who can and cannot speak on campus. Combined with Gonzaga’s other reasons given for canceling Shapiro, it is a pretty safe bet that they don’t like his politics and view his opinions as “hate speech” and don’t want to support “hate speech” on campus. I am very curious what Gonzaga thinks Shapiro says that violates human dignity and Jesuit values, considering who they have let speak on campus. Finally, this is a student club who wanted the event. I can’t agree with a University refusing to allow student clubs to invite speakers they want to invite, and to talk about topics they want to talk about. If they are so concerned about Ben Shapiro, they can hold their own talk bout how terrible his opinions are.

 

[JonNC]

I suppose it does to some extent. I wouldn’t necessarily want to hear a plumber’s opinion on carpet installation. But there also may be limitations due to things like security, as in Gonzaga’s case.

Apparently, he is good at what he does.

It isn’t about what someone wants to hear. Nobody has to listen. Nobody is required to attend. It is about speech rights, and the rights of those who do want to hear.

 

[JonNC]

I was referring to the influence of Catholic educators have on their students. Otherwise why send your kids to Jesuits or Holy Cross or Sisters of Providence, for that matter?

I’m not sure of the relevance, but if the schools you mentioned hold such a low regard for the free exchange of ideas as Gonzaga, I’d have to ask the same question.

 

[JonNC]

Your comments challenge the validity of these reasons, not the reasons Gonzaga had for giving them. I know you disagree with Gonzaga on things like whether Shapiro’s presence really would be a security threat, but that is the reason they gave, and the reason itself is not political.

“Vulnerable members of the community “?
Do you think they mean here that Shapiro is a security threat to them, that and his listeners will seek out vulnerable people for violence?
Or, does Gonzaga believe Shapiro’s beliefs are an attack on the most vulnerable? And if so, isn’t that political?

“Human dignity of every individual”?
Is there a security concern in this regard?
Or, does Gonzaga believe Shapiro’s beliefs show a disregard for human dignity? If so, isn’t that political?

Gonzaga might have security concerns, but they are not from Shapiro. They are from fascistic groups like Antifa and other radical progressives who participate in violence and threats of violence to stop speech.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Their security concern is bogus. Every university that wants to ban a speaker cites “security concerns”.

Therefore every time a university bans a speaker it is for other reasons? Still sounds like speculation to me.

The security concerns, btw, come from left-wing protesters trying to shut down or shout down any event on campus they disagree with.

Even if that were true, the university does not have to risk their student’s safety to “teach those liberals a lesson.”

And historically, these haven’t been violent, just loud and annoying.

A matter of degree, and when get on the board of a university you can try to make your case for why they should risk it.

Combined with Gonzaga’s other reasons given for canceling Shapiro, it is a pretty safe bet that they don’t like his politics and view his opinions as “hate speech” and don’t want to support “hate speech” on campus.

I’m glad you acknowledged it is only a bet about the politics part.

I am very curious what Gonzaga thinks Shapiro says that violates human dignity and Jesuit values,

Are you curious enough to ask the VP at Gonzaga who made the announcement? Or only curious enough to see what other right-wing media has said of it?

 

[petra22]

But really any major Catholic university has no right to call itself Catholic anymore.

And that’s really a SAD thing!

 

[1Lord1Faith]

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

The students do not have a right to hear their favorite speaker on campus. They can hear him speak off campus at their own leisure, that is their right to free assembly and free speech.

It isn’t about what someone wants to hear

I think it is. You can argue that it shouldn’t be, but that is your opinion against Gonzaga’s opinion. And you don’t have any authority at Gonzaga. The University has rights and responsibilities as well. If students don’t like the way the university is managed, they can leave if they wish.

 

[JonNC]

The students do not have a right to hear their favorite speaker on campus. They can hear him speak off campus at their own leisure, that is their right to free assembly and free speech.

Absolutely. Gonzaga is a private university. They have the right to exclude visiting speakers as they choose. Interestingly, it is many of those who might applaud this decision who would say a Christian college that opposes abortifacients should be forced to provide them in the health insurance coverage.

Yes it is. You can argue that it shouldn’t be, but that is your opinion against Gonzaga’s opinion. And you don’t have any authority at Gonzaga. The University has rights and responsibilities as well. If students don’t like the way the university is managed, they can leave if they wish.

Of course I don’t have any authority there. I never claimed I did. Other than that, all of what you say is true. And yet would you argue that Bob Jones University deserves to be censured by the government and accreditation association for its racial practices decades ago?

Gonzaga can practice this form of speech limitations as they wish. My free speech rights allow me to criticize it.

 

[TK421]

JonNC:

So, yes, you think colleges shouldn’t allow the free exchange of ideas

I misread your post. I mean to say I am for the free exchange of ideas in college.

I’m speculating that Shapiro is being denied because his chosen profession is based upon his speech being polemic and “entertaining”, therefore lacking in substance and seriousness. I don’t think it has anything to do with him being conservative.

I disagree with Shapiro on a number of things but I’ve listened to some of his videos and seen some of his talks, and this conclusion of yours is extremely bizarre to me. He’s easily less polemic than major TV personalities such as Hannity (conservative) or Maddow (liberal). On top of that his views are fairly mainstream center-right among roughly 1/3rd of US citizens. He’s a Harvard graduate that has been a columnist since he was 17-years-old.

The fact is: campuses are hostile towards conservative thought and it’s the potential protestors - not Shapiro - who are the potential security threat. If college administrators at a private university of white privilege elitist nominal Catholics in Washington State wants to block him, yes, they have the legal right to do so, but don’t expect it to do any favors for the image of the university. The implicit message of the college administrators is fairly clear: if you’re one of the roughly 50% of Americans that lean conservative, you don’t belong.

 

[petra22]

Shame on you. YOu don’t have to attend the meeting but you should not ban just because you don’t agree. there are other points of view out there. May the one that makes the most sense to you be your guiding light. Don’t turn off the light in other people’s hearts and mind… Jesus would not have it so, or we would be robots in love with God!

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Shame on you. YOu don’t have to attend the meeting but you should not ban just because you don’t agree. there are other points of view out there. May the one that makes the most sense to you be your guiding light. Don’t turn off the light in other people’s hearts and mind… Jesus would not have it so, or we would be robots in love with God!

I don’t think 1Lord1Faith is in a position to ban or not to ban. Gonzaga is in such a position and may have to justify their decision on apolitical grounds. But observers like most of us can certainly rejoice when we see something done that is agreeable to our politics and ethics and philosophy. It is like when Hillary’s e-mails got hacked. Republicans could not justify hacking in general, but the sure did rejoice that it happened in that particular case!

 

[JonNC]

petra22:

Shame on you. YOu don’t have to attend the meeting but you should not ban just because you don’t agree. there are other points of view out there. May the one that makes the most sense to you be your guiding light. Don’t turn off the light in other people’s hearts and mind… Jesus would not have it so, or we would be robots in love with God!

I don’t think 1Lord1Faith is in a position to ban or not to ban. Gonzaga is in such a position and may have to justify their decision on apolitical grounds. But observers like most of us can certainly rejoice when we see something done that is agreeable to our politics and ethics and philosophy. It is like when Hillary’s e-mails got hacked. Republicans could not justify hacking in general, but the sure did rejoice that it happened in that particular case!

Something like Democrats opposing spying on an American in a campaign unless it’s Trump.

That said, I think conservatives consistently demonstrate a far greater tolerance of the right to free speech than progressives. Name a university where conservatives have violently protested a speaker who is a leftist. Meanwhile, it happens with regularity in the reverse.
There is no equivalency.