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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathoholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JonNC said:
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.
Click to expand...
It actually happens quite rarely relative to the numbers of speakers that visit campuses annually.

Moreover I think it is insufficient to look at the situation as left vs right speakers, but more about the nature of the rhetoric and logic used. Here is a very good read on why Shapiro, even as he seems perfect for talk radio, widely misses the as a speaker at a university.

static.currentaffairs.org

The Cool Kid’s Philosopher | Current Affairs

static.currentaffairs.org static.currentaffairs.org
 
dvdjs said:
40.png
JonNC:
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.
Click to expand...
It actually happens quite rarely relative to the numbers of speakers that visit campuses annually.

Moreover I think it is insufficient to look at the situation as left vs right speakers, but more about the nature of the rhetoric and logic used. Here is a very good read on why Shapiro, even as he seems perfect for talk radio, widely misses the as a speaker at a university.
Click to expand...
Oh, but it is about left vs right, or more precisely, conservative vs progressive, and has been for decades. This isn’t about Ben Shapiro alone. This has been going on for many years, as David Horowitz will attest.
 
Not according to the late Cardinal George.

“The liberal/conservative thing, I think, is destructive of the Church’s mission and her life. I’ve said that publicly a lot at times. You’re taking a definition that comes out of nowhere, as far as we’re concerned, it’s a modern distinction, and making it the judgment of the Church’s life. It’s because we’re lazy. You put a label on people, you put a label on something, and it saves you the trouble of thinking.“

https://cruxnow.com/church/2014/11/...-the-church-is-about-truefalse-not-leftright/
 
Last edited:
I’m considered a traditionalist by many and found that the Cardinal’s words to be as directed at me as anyone else. I’m no defender of this Gonzaga University by the way. In fact I know only that they do well in basketball.
 
Last edited:
dvdjs said:
40.png
JonNC:
Oh, but it is about left vs right, or more precisely, conservative vs progressive, and has been for decades
Click to expand...
I disagree. This is about critical thinking vs polemics.
Click to expand...
No, it is about the free exchange of ideas and speech rights vs the intention to silence the speech of opponents.
Consistently, conservatives have not protested speech, particularly violently. When protests against a speech happen, violent or not, on college campuses and elsewhere, it is by progressives.
 
Conservatives do not form protest marches to abridge free speech. They have their own preferred way to do it, they get on school boards and ban certain books. They get control of museums and ban certain works of art. They like to operate top-down instead of bottom-up. They are less visible that way.
 
JonNC said:
No, it is about the free exchange of ideas and speech rights vs the intention to silence the speech of opponents.
Click to expand...
I think that it has been stipulated that there are no free speech rights at issues in Gonzaga’s actions.

As to the the free exchange of ideas: universities that they curate ideas; that is an essential element of what they do. Shapiro is quick but thick on polemics and think on ideas and critical thinking. He is not the kind of speaker that universities invite, but may, if policies demand, acquiesce to requests from student who don’t quite get it.
JonNC said:
Consistently, conservatives have not protested speech
Click to expand...
Some time ago you provided a link to list of disinvited or disrupted speakers. I recall that many of the incidents involved protests by conservatives.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Conservatives do not form protest marches to abridge free speech. They have their own preferred way to do it, they get on school boards and ban certain books. They get control of museums and ban certain works of art. They like to operate top-down instead of bottom-up. They are less visible that way.
Click to expand...
And evidence of this is…where?
 
It’s amazing that he is pro-life yet his values are thought to be anti-Jesuit. What positions of his do they object to, specifically? (I didn’t see that addressed in the article.)
 
tomarin said:
What positions of his do they object to, specifically?
Click to expand...
You might read through the Current Affairs article that I linked to get an idea of how Shapiro’s rhetoric squares with the stated values in the OP of “human dignity, [and] solidarity with vulnerable people”.
 
Last edited:
dvdjs said:
You might read through the Current Affairs article that I linked to get an idea of how Shapiro’s rhetoric squares with the stated values in the OP of “human dignity, [and] solidarity with vulnerable people”.
Click to expand...
I read through enough of that article to dismiss it as biased and distorted, but here’s the thing: that perception, even if it was true, should not provide an excuse for banning a speaker. There are some speakers who ought to be banned - not all speech is in fact protected - but Shapiro (Coulter, Yiannopolis, Murray…) is not among them. These people are banned because the ideas they present are dangerous to those who hold opposing political views. What does it say about the validity of ideas that need to be defended by eliminating debate altogether?
 
He writes regularly for National Review and I’ve read a few of his articles; I’ve never noticed anything beyond the pale or fringey in his opinions.
 
Last edited:
Ender said:
40.png
dvdjs:
You might read through the Current Affairs article that I linked to get an idea of how Shapiro’s rhetoric squares with the stated values in the OP of “human dignity, [and] solidarity with vulnerable people”.
Click to expand...
I read through enough of that article to dismiss it as biased and distorted, but here’s the thing: that perception, even if it was true, should not provide an excuse for banning a speaker. There are some speakers who ought to be banned - not all speech is in fact protected - but Shapiro (Coulter, Yiannopolis, Murray…) is not among them. These people are banned because the ideas they present are dangerous to those who hold opposing political views. What does it say about the validity of ideas that need to be defended by eliminating debate altogether?
Click to expand...
Gonzaga cited safety concerns.

And the evidence for Gonzaga’s reasons being other than what they stated is…where?
 
Ender said:
I read through enough of that article to dismiss it as biased and distorted,
Click to expand...
I am not sure what you men by biased and distorted. Perhaps you mean that it does not pay enough attention to some good content that he might produce. But how much bad content, which was liberally quoted and dissected, does he have to produce to taint his reputation?
Ender said:
but here’s the thing: that perception, even if it was true, should not provide an excuse for banning a speaker
Click to expand...
I don’t agree. I listed to the beginning of his Berkeley talk and some other clips. Just his chronic name calling puts him outside the realm of people who can be seen as valuing “human dignity, [and] solidarity with vulnerable people”. This kind of discourse isn’t the stuff of universities.
 
Last edited:
tomarin said:
He writes regularly for National Review and I’ve read a few of his articles; I’ve never noticed anything beyond the pale or fringey in his opinions.
Click to expand...
I am delighted that National Review upholds editorial standards, but Shapiro’s talks go astray, IMO. We may disagree however, that calling opponents morons is beyond the pale. But consider that that rhetoric would probably not be allowable here.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Gonzaga cited safety concerns.

And the evidence for Gonzaga’s reasons being other than what they stated is…where?
Click to expand...
Gonzaga is right. Violent leftists who would protest are a safety concern. But then that suggests the leftism they no doubt teach at Gonzaga is a safety concern. Even if leftists do present a safety concern aren’t universities supposed to be brave places where threats of violence won’t stop intellectual exploration? Giving in to the threats of violence also only encourages more threats.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Gonzaga cited safety concerns.

And the evidence for Gonzaga’s reasons being other than what they stated is…where?
Click to expand...
Yes, they did cite safety concerns: they claim to be afraid that leftist groups might do at Gonzaga what they have done on other campuses who have invited conservative speakers.

“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,” Biggs Garbuio said, appearing to accidentally acknowledge the intolerance of campus left-wing protestors, who have at other schools rioted and stormed buildings in response to speakers with whom they disagreed.

As others have pointed out, however, that is not the only reason they gave:

“Gonzaga University is committed to the human dignity of every individual,” she said. “This is the core of our mission based on the teachings of Christ Jesus, and the foundations of the Society of Jesus. We stand in solidarity with vulnerable members of our community who may be targeted for discrimination, ridicule, or harassment by others.”

It appears that what this means is they don’t want their students to hear opposing views, despite what the university itself claims in its mission statement:

“Through engagement with knowledge, wisdom, and questions informed by classical and contemporary perspectives, Gonzaga cultivates in its students the capacities and dispositions for reflective and critical thought…”

It isn’t clear how they will develop a capacity for critical thought if they denied exposure to controversial ideas.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top