• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bloomberg: Universities becoming bastions of intolerance

That's because one side of conservatism (the Money) dislikes academia because their quaint humanism opposes Social Darwinism and the other (the Grassroots) because they don't respect scholarship.

Is this an attempt to soak a post with sarcasm and wit? Remember, if that is the case, tone and inflection is lost on the internet.

If you're serious....I started laughing at the "money" part. Most of academia easily fall in the upper class category.
 
Not because of salaries we don't. When "upper class" includes those with extensive education as a marker, we do.
 
I think this raises a discussion point more so than an inherent problem. Universities - many of them, at least - are public, and these speakers are being funded in many cases by student org dollars which mostly come from the university. The speakers, therefore, are being paid public dollars to speak at a public university. Now, I don't know about anyone else here, but if I was going to college and, say, someone that was calling for the genocide of Israelis or Palestinians, or who was promoting racial violence, came to speak and was being paid to do so at my university, I wouldn't want them to. I'd protest with the goal of getting it shut down.

So the real question is, where is the line? Should there be one, or should students be allowed to protest whomever they want with the goal of shutting down the speech?

There should be no line, for if there is one, it always gets moved and muddled.
 
There should be no line, for if there is one, it always gets moved and muddled.

I disagree. I think there's always a line, even if we want to act like it's not there. There's only so much a society will tolerate. That's just how it is.
 
No so sure. Yes conservatives disregard facts they don't like, but his evidence here is weak. I've never been to Harvard, but voting habits and student protests wouldn't convince me. I'd need to see evidence of the schools unwillingness to listen. Rice was invited. It's not a bad thing to take protest head on. I once heard a story of Bush I doing it brilliantly.

It's very evident that Libbos--afraid of the Conservative message--will do anything to silence Conservative speech.
 
It's very evident that Libbos--afraid of the Conservative message--will do anything to silence Conservative speech.

I don't see that at all. Got anything concrete or factual?
 
1) Inviting someone to address graduation, and in all of these cases (AFAIK) receive honorary degrees is to bestow a high honor on those speakers. It's not the time or place for provocative speakers or spirited debate - it's supposed to be a joyous occasion for the graduates and their families.

2) Let's assume for the moment that Liberty University honored a pro-choice leader (CEO Planned Parenthood?) to address the graduates. Would anyone be the least surprised or shocked or even object if students protested granting that honor to a person who promotes widely available abortion? Of course not. I think the biggest problem people have is that they don't think the REASONS for the protests are legitimate - it's a judgment on the issues being protested and not on the tactic. Well, when a speaker holds views that disqualify them for a high honor such as commencement speaker really isn't up to anyone but the students. I just don't see the tactic - students protesting the granting of a high honor to a speaker with whom they have serious disagreements - as anything illegitimate in the least.

3) I sort of have to laugh at Bloomberg and other elites who expect their butts to be kissed by the proles at all times objecting when the proles don't do as expected. I have a hard time working up my "give a crap" meter above 0.

4) There have been recent instances of liberals protesting speeches on campus that aren't part of any ceremony - just invited speakers. I agree in (most of) those cases, the proper response is to hear another side, debate it if appropriate, etc. I don't think that prohibiting those we disagree with from expressing their opinions serves any useful function. The commencement speakers are different, see above. I'll also add the right wing in my state went all berserk about "Sex Week" at the university, which is a week long sex education series of speeches, presentations, etc. The legislature introduced bills aimed right shutting down that VERY popular on campus event....
 
I ask again, such as?

I know you think that's clever. You'd have to have the school denying difference of opinions. Evidence of hiring practices specifically designed to prevent hiring. An application question, like are you now or have you ever been a conservative. Evidence that not one professor, but that's majority of professors deny differing opinions or conservative thought in the classroom. Or that the school never, ever invites conservatives to the campus. Actual evidence of something actually being done.
 
Universities are certainly the place where differing views should brought up and analyzed. Their goal should be education, not indoctrination. When I went to college (1960's) things were as I think they should be. I didn't experience any political indoctrination at all. Something has changed and it doesn't feel right.

The 60's radicals are now running the show, and what they have brought to the table proves that my grandfather was right about them all along.
 
I know you think that's clever. You'd have to have the school denying difference of opinions. Evidence of hiring practices specifically designed to prevent hiring. An application question, like are you now or have you ever been a conservative. Evidence that not one professor, but that's majority of professors deny differing opinions or conservative thought in the classroom. Or that the school never, ever invites conservatives to the campus. Actual evidence of something actually being done.

It is unlikely that Universities would be so bold as to put their prejudices in writing but the hiring results are clear. College Faculties A Most Liberal Lot, Study Finds (washingtonpost.com)

We should keep in mind that among those 87% 'liberals' and/or 'progressives' (who do not celebrate 'diversity') are Communists, Marxists, Marxist-Leninists, and (with variations ad infinitum) your ordinary run-of-the -mill confused leftists. By and large they are dissatisfied with the USA, but enjoy their tenure and perks.
 
Bloomberg "In each case, liberals silenced a voice -- and denied an honorary degree -- to individuals they deemed politically objectionable. This is an outrage," Bloomberg said to applause.

Honorary degrees or invitations to be a commencement speaker are honors that should only go to honorable people. Those are not opportunities for open debate. It is perfectly legitimate for the members of an institution giving an honor to protest when they are not consulted and an undeserving person is selected to be honored. The people that have been protested have mostly been bigots and warmongers.

I have no problem with protests, I do not support shouting down a speaker so that they can not be heard when it is not an event to honor an undeserving person.
 
Bloomberg "In each case, liberals silenced a voice -- and denied an honorary degree -- to individuals they deemed politically objectionable. This is an outrage," Bloomberg said to applause.

Honorary degrees or invitations to be a commencement speaker are honors that should only go to honorable people. Those are not opportunities for open debate. It is perfectly legitimate for the members of an institution giving an honor to protest when they are not consulted and an undeserving person is selected to be honored. The people that have been protested have mostly been bigots and warmongers.

I have no problem with protests, I do not support shouting down a speaker so that they can not be heard when it is not an event to honor an undeserving person.

Are you saying that Condi Rice is not an honorable person? There is no evidence Universities are only interested in hiring honorable people or allowing only honorable to speak.
 
Are you saying that Condi Rice is not an honorable person? There is no evidence Universities are only interested in hiring honorable people or allowing only honorable to speak.

Yes. Condi Rice is a liar who helped drag us into an unnecessary war.

Honorary degrees or invitations to be a commencement speaker are honors that should only go to honorable people. Other speaking engagements do not need to go to only honorable people. It is appropriate to protest against the views of these other speakers, but not to shout them down or otherwise try to prevent them from speaking or being heard.
 
Michael Bloomberg: Universities becoming bastions of intolerance - CNN.com


While former Mayor Bloomberg was making a commencement address, I believe the points he made went beyond even Higher Education to the larger issue of a willingness to listen to diverse viewpoints (something that also seems increasingly infrequent when it comes to discussions of politics/policy and economics). Receptivity to listen to another view point should not be confused with automatic acceptance of it. One always remains free to accept or reject messages in part or in whole. However, exposure to new or different perspectives can enrich one's own understanding, whether one is in school, at work, or simply conducting one's own life. Hence, I've added this story here. If it's the incorrect forum, it can be moved.
Genesis.
The Recent furor really started 7 weeks ago here/BN.
I was pissed.
4/10 http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...onor-anti-islam-feminist-ayaan-hirsi-ali.html
And felt finally affirmed a month later by the WSJ "Partisan Politics"
5/11 http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...platforms/193598-closing-collegiate-mind.html

whereupon Jack Hays decided it was gonna be His idea, but in GP.
5/13 http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...urns-against-free-speech-and-open-debate.html
5/16 http://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/194050-leftist-mob-campus.html
For good measure/to make sure:
5/20 http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...94376-leftist-offensive-continues-campus.html

Then, I guess Bloomberg (like Brandeis, Massachusetts+Jewish), Couldn't have missed the controversy/point.
Leading to this string on 5/30.
 
Last edited:
Yes. Condi Rice is a liar who helped drag us into an unnecessary war.

You appear to be uninformed.

Honorary degrees or invitations to be a commencement speaker are honors that should only go to honorable people. Other speaking engagements do not need to go to only honorable people. It is appropriate to protest against the views of these other speakers, but not to shout them down or otherwise try to prevent them from speaking or being heard.

If Condi Rice is not allowed to speak then neither should Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry or Barrack Obama. There shouldn't have one rule for Democrats (in fact there couldn't have been any rules when Robert Byrd spoke) and another for Republicans.
 
You appear to be uninformed.



If Condi Rice is not allowed to speak then neither should Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry or Barrack Obama. There shouldn't have one rule for Democrats (in fact there couldn't have been any rules when Robert Byrd spoke) and another for Republicans.

Those Democrats (excluding Obama) supported the Iraq war, but they did not have access to all the information that Rice did and were not a part of the Bush II administration's campaign to sell the war with scare tactics and misleading and false information. Rice has a right to speak wherever she is invited, but she is not deserving of the prestige and honor of being a commencement speaker or being given an honorary degree.
 
Those Democrats (excluding Obama) supported the Iraq war, but they did not have access to all the information that Rice did and were not a part of the Bush II administration's campaign to sell the war with scare tactics and misleading and false information.

You said the reason was that Condi Rice was a liar. So are all those other people I mentioned.

If support of the Iraq War is your personal criteria then you'd find most Americans, at least at the beginning, would fall under that category. Three of the four politicians named were and Barrack Obama, the Taliban's Boy Toy, managed to lose both Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan to the Islamists and almost deliberately lost Egypt.
 
It is unlikely that Universities would be so bold as to put their prejudices in writing but the hiring results are clear. College Faculties A Most Liberal Lot, Study Finds (washingtonpost.com)

We should keep in mind that among those 87% 'liberals' and/or 'progressives' (who do not celebrate 'diversity') are Communists, Marxists, Marxist-Leninists, and (with variations ad infinitum) your ordinary run-of-the -mill confused leftists. By and large they are dissatisfied with the USA, but enjoy their tenure and perks.
Again, being a majority doesn't in and of itself prove anything. And your over the top 87% number doesn't really deserve comment.
 
Those Democrats (excluding Obama) supported the Iraq war, but they did not have access to all the information that Rice did and were not a part of the Bush II administration's campaign to sell the war with scare tactics and misleading and false information. Rice has a right to speak wherever she is invited, but she is not deserving of the prestige and honor of being a commencement speaker or being given an honorary degree.

When did Condi Rice lie and what information did she have that others lacked?

Any political party which honors a member of the KKK should certainly not pass judgement on Condoleeza Rice.
 
Again, being a majority doesn't in and of itself prove anything.

Actually majority decisions count for a great deal in democracies.
And your over the top 87% number doesn't really deserve comment.

You didn't even read the link! How do you ever expect to become knowledgeable if you don't read? Is it a left wing requirement??
 
Those Democrats (excluding Obama) supported the Iraq war, but they did not have access to all the information that Rice did and were not a part of the Bush II administration's campaign to sell the war with scare tactics and misleading and false information. Rice has a right to speak wherever she is invited, but she is not deserving of the prestige and honor of being a commencement speaker or being given an honorary degree.

That is inaccurate. They had full access to the intelligence community's information and assessments. Nor did Rice lie, that is an inaccurate but feel-good charge laid by those who confuse their strong opposition to the Iraq war with the need to demonize their opposition.
 
Back
Top Bottom