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

[dvdjs]

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

I think that it is. Institutions are very conscious of their mission and their brand. Decisions of this type are not made arbitrarily, but typically follow policy made with considerable deliberation.

 

[JonNC]

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”?

Rights are not created by the constitution. The constitution merely enumerates certain rights the framers deemed necessary of protections.
So while every person has the right to free speech antecedent to government, so also does the university have a right to its property in determining who may or may not be there.
It is really the very basic foundational understanding of rights.

Please, not just “nonsense”; I also mentioned also, name-calling, inflammatory, and hate.

Which is the constant rhetoric of the American progressive movement, even if not practiced by all. We need only observe many college professors about the President, senators’ comments about “old white men”, the constant lies about racism, etc. conservatives have been the constant recipients of name calling in the media for decades. We know about that.

 

[dvdjs]

So while every person has the right to free speech

What is the origin of this so called “right”? How is this right revealed? What philosophical framework is behind this idea?

Which is the constant rhetoric of the American progressive movement,

I don’t think that there is evidence to support the idea that thsi is constant rhetoric of progressives.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

So while every person has the right to free speech

What is the origin of this so called “right”? How is this right revealed? What philosophical framework is behind this idea?

Which is the constant rhetoric of the American progressive movement,

I don’t think that there is evidence to support the idea that thsi is constant rhetoric of progressives.

On the first, I’ll refer you to the framers and founders. The belief that rights are an “endowment by the creator” is extant in their writings.

On the second: name calling, inflammatory, and hate, as you mentioned in your post that I responded to.

 

[dvdjs]

The belief that rights are an “endowment by the creator” is extant in their writings.

Fine, but they did not enumerate the vague “speech rights” among the “certain inalienable rights”. Maybe it was one of the the certain rights endowed by the Creator, maybe not. Is there something in the scritputre that supports the idea that it is?

On the second: name calling, inflammatory, and hate, as you mentioned in your post that I responded to.

That is evidence that reasonably, apart from the idea of “constancy,” may be used against individuals (like I did against Shaprro), but there is no basis for applying it to a whole category of people.

 

[JonNC]

Fine, but they did not enumerate the vague “speech rights” among the “ certain inalienable rights”. Maybe it was one of the the certain rights endowed by the Creator, maybe not. Is there something in the scritputre that supports the idea that it is?

So they did in the Bill of RIGHTS. Other than for those who believe that government power (the collective) should trump individual rights (a prerequisite of tyranny), there is no reason or proof that they thought “rights” in the constitution was different than “rights” in the a Declaration of Independence.

That is evidence that reasonably, apart from the idea of “constancy,” may be used against individuals (like I did against Shaprro), but there is no basis for applying it to a whole category of people.

When a significant number, over decades, connected to the same movement, do it with almost talking-point unity, yeah it can be applied to a movement.
You can deny it, say it isn’t consistent with the movement, but I’ve watched it for decades, and I’m thankful for people like Shapiro, Carlson, Prager and others for forcefully pushing back.

 

[dvdjs]

So they did in the Bill of RIGHTS

Huh? we already agreed that the speech rights that you have posted about are not the rights in the Constitution.
Gonzaga is not the government and does not exercise government power.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

So they did in the Bill of RIGHTS

Huh? we already agreed that the speech rights that you have posted about are not the rights in the Constitution.
Gonzaga is not the government and does not exercise government power.

Then don’t question the basis of the right. You’re then one who claimed that rights are vague.
Gonzaga has a right, too. That right is the right to property. They also have a right to not provide abortifacients in their health insurance plan, and defend traditional marriage, and hold any number of views.
They have a right to keep Ben Shapiro off of their campus, even on political grounds as they’ve chosen. They can even claim, falsely, that they support a free exchange of ideas.

 

[dvdjs]

Then don’t question the basis of the right.

Sorry. I am just not following the argument.
You are taking of a “speech rights” that are not Constitutional rights, and for which you have not made a case form scripture that they are endowed by our Creator. I think that Gonzaga is on solid ground anf not violating anyo rights.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Then don’t question the basis of the right.

Sorry. I am just not following the argument.

I’m sorry you’re not.
Do you agree that free speech is a right that government should not infringe (other than when someone’s speech harms another’s rights- yelling fire in a theatre, etc)?
Do you agree that Gonzaga has a right to property, and can therefore limit access by others, even if that limits speech?
If so, there is no contradiction here. Gonzaga is limiting speech for political reasons, but since it is not a public/government school, it cannot be considered a violation of the constitutionally protected inherent individual right to free speech.

 

[dvdjs]

Gonzaga is limiting speech for political reasons, but since it is not a public/government school, it cannot be considered a violation of the constitutionally protected inherent individual right to free speech.

In fairness, Gonzaga is limiting speech for the reason’s it stated. The evidence that it limited speech for political reasons is lacking. Aside form this point, i agree with your statement. In previous posts, however, you have indicated that the limitation of speech was a violation of rights.

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.

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

I disagree with that idea: no one rights are violated by Gonzaga’a action.

 

[JonNC]

In fairness, Gonzaga is limiting speech for the reason’s it stated.

So we agree that Gonzaga is limiting the speech of Shapiro, the campus College Republicans and others, even if we don’t refer to it as their rights.

The evidence that it limited speech for political reasons is lacking.

“Gonzaga University is committed to the human dignity of every individual,” the administrator continued. “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.”

This is purely political. How on earth could one guy, by giving a speech, be discriminating against vulnerable members of the community? They’ve allowed pro-abortion speakers who intentionally target the most vulnerable of all. They’ve had at lesst one communist, and communists turn everyone but the ruling class into vulnerable members of the community.

Clearly it’s political. There are two differences between having Angela Davis speaking and Ben Shapiro speak. 1) The philosophy of Davis truly does threaten the vulnerable (everyone but the ruling class), while Shapiro’s off liberation for the vulnerable. 2) fascistic thugs like Antifa are given the mob veto, while conservatives rarely participate in that kind of violence.

 

[dvdjs]

… even if we don’t refer to it as their rights.

I do not and we should not refer to it as “their rights”, because there is no matter of rights involved.

This is purely political.

Gonzaga’s statement contains no reference to Shapiro’s politics.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

… even if we don’t refer to it as their rights.

I do not and we should not refer to it as “their rights”, because there is no matter of rights involved.

This is purely political.

Gonzaga’s statement contains no reference to Shapiro’s politics.

I quoted it. They’re certainly not referring to someone else, or some vague notion. They’re talking about Shapiro and his political views.

 

[dvdjs]

I quoted it.

They do not refer to political views.

You might note that Gonzaga has hosted other Conservative speakers.
Here is an article that may help illuminate the thinking on outside speakers:

https://www.gonzagabulletin.com/news/article_83cb90dc-1fdb-11e7-aeee-6f0f2fb7c38e.html

 

[JonNC]

They do not refer to political views.

You’re parsing.

 

[dvdjs]

You’re parsing.

I am reading what they said.

 

[CaptFun]

There was blowback and a temporary ban on the return of The Vagina Monologues … but …

They’re BA-ack! Won’t post the link but that play is scheduled to be on campus just in time for “V-day” which is ON February 14, 2019 …
but the V …
…doesn’t refer to St. Valentine.

 

[JonNC]

**

There was blowback and a temporary ban on the return of The Vagina Monologues … but …

They’re BA-ack! Won’t post the link but that play is scheduled to be on campus just in time for “V-day” which is ON February 14, 2019 …
but the V …
…doesn’t refer to St. Valentine.

It doesn’t stand for virtue, either.

 

[vsedriver]

There is no substance to that article

thank goodness, I thought it might just be me. I kept waiting for her to show what exactly Shapiro said or did but all she did was make claims against him with no evidence to back up her claims.