By Professor Doom
In the real
world, it’s completely understood that everyone has a bias, and that applies to
news sites. So, to get some idea of the big picture, I went to alternative
sites to hear the worst about Hillary (some of it might even be true), and I
went to “mainstream” sites to hear the worst about Trump (and, hey, some of it
might even be true). But that’s the real world, higher education is supposed to
be at least a little different, and not necessarily (just) in an Alice In
Wonderland way, though that all too often is the case.
The whole point
of a “university” is to have the intellectual universe in one place. I grant
there are limitations to this; nobody seriously argues that 1 + 1 = 3 (at least
not in math classes, although even then, at the risk of digressing, if you
change what you mean by “+” you can do it. Anyway…). Still, when it comes to
less objective topics, it’s supposed to be possible to have a reasonable
discussion about the topic, both sides of it, on campus.
The “prevailing
ideology” of mathematics is that 1 + 1 = 2 leads to the most useful
calculations. I have a pretty open mind, and I’d like to think any scholar
would. Even though I’m very, very, confident that 1 + 1 = 2 can lead to some
good results, if someone wants to talk about how some useful calculations can
come from “1 + 1 = 3” I don’t have a problem if he wants to come to campus and
present his research and discuss his ideas.
More and more,
however, “controversial” speakers are getting banned from campus. I understand
that for safety reasons, you might have to do such a thing, though it’s
regrettable. To be controversial, however, there must be (at least) two sides
to the topic. What I find disturbing about this is it seems like only one side
of the controversy seems to be allowed on campus, ever. I’ve covered many
examples of conservative voices silenced on campus.
Again, one
should expect that certain speakers, sometimes, should not be allowed, having
faith in university admin to make such a regrettable decision when they feel
that the risks outweigh the benefits of having the discussion.
So, let’s talk
about the latest conservative speaker to be prevented from presenting his ideas
on campus. Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke is an outspoken critic of
Black Lives Matter. He is, of course, black, because somehow any white who
criticizes this movement is defined as RACIST…and I again find myself wanting to
indulge in a digression.
I was recently called RACIST for agreeing
with the CEO of Gallup that the official government unemployment numbers are a
fiction, implying that I only questioned government numbers because Obama
was in office. It’s annoying that we have so many people trained to shut down
conversation about things they don’t like by shouting RACIST. In all honesty,
the Left (i.e., the people most noted for the hue and cry of RACIST) are more
responsible for Trump than any other group. No normal human being could take
the endless vicious assaults he’s endured the last six months. A typical human
can’t, but a Neanderthal (or, to use the more polite term, “alpha male”)
can…something about the thick orange skin, perhaps. Instead of discussing real
issues, the country was forced to discuss locker room talk…even as Russia was
loading 40 million citizens into bunkers in preparation for a nuclear attack by
the US.
Am I the only one
who thinks we should ask more about what we’re doing to trigger this level of
fear in Russia, and that such a question is far more relevant than what a
couple of trash-talking guys said 11 years ago? I know I heard far worse in
high school, many times…on election day it seems quite a few others went to the
same kind of public schools I went to.
Anyway, the
Sheriff has the only skin color allowed to criticize BLM, and due to quirks in
the pro-BLM ideology, they can’t shut him up by screaming RACIST. Bottom line,
reasons aren’t relevant, so you just shut him down anyway:
And so another
chance to have discussion on a topic that’s caused more than a few riots is
eliminated. Look, I respect that university administration has to make a
decision to protect students, and so, on good faith, I might be able to
overlook the “coincidental” removal of anyone who dares speak against the
prevailing ideology.
The sheriff
explains what he was told about why his voice was silenced:
On August
3, my assistant had a conversation with Mr. Malloy, who was extremely
apologetic and embarrassed to have to rescind the offer. Apparently, the
higher-ups did not want me to speak on campus due to my remarks about
#BlackLivesMatter.
Now, the sheriff
is a lawman…he certainly doesn’t want to cause a riot, does not want to see
citizens, much less kids, injured. And so he quietly and respectfully goes
away. Good for him, it takes character to simply walk away when you are
wronged.
But then the
university lies about their reasons
for the disinvitation:
The University is
aware that some people, including current students and alumni, are upset that
Sheriff David Clarke’s invitation to speak at the Markle Symposium was
rescinded. As an institution of higher learning, we fully support free speech
and value the marketplace of ideas. Unfortunately, circumstances did not permit Sheriff Clarke’s attendance at this
year’s symposium, and we respect the resulting divergent reactions among the
University community.
--emphasis added.
Circumstances
did not permit? The sheriff was quite willing to come, it’s not like there was
a blizzard or anything. When called out on how the public excuse by UNH doesn’t
quite pass the smell test, the Poo
Bah doubles down:
But Kaplan said university officials did not “lie” about what happened, as Clarke has suggested, and did not cancel the appearance by Clarke, an African-American conservative, to be politically correct, as he has alleged.
“The irony is that I had never heard of Sheriff Clarke until this past Wednesday,” said Kaplan, who Clarke has repeatedly criticized for the way the issue has been handled, even though Kaplan had yet to speak publicly about it until Monday.
Now, the Poo Bah
has nothing to do with education, so it’s quite possible that he’s telling the
truth about him, personally, not knowing the sheriff. The cancellation could
easily have come via the many cowardly deanlings that infest our campuses.
The Poo Bah
honestly doesn’t know much about it, as the quotes I’ve taken above come
from a phone interview:
“…in a telephone
conversation with the New Haven Register as he drove from West Haven to his
home in Branford to get ready for flights to India and later Malaysia on
university business.”
I bet the gentle
reader didn’t even know that the University of New Haven was such a big
player in India and Malaysia that it had business there. UNH has around 7,000
customers each year, to put that in context. It’s reasonable to ask some
questions there, as you can bet a $1,000,000 or more is being spent to send the
Poo Bah and his entourage to the other side of the planet for
something-or-other. It’s a private school, but it sure is weird just how often
I see Poo Bahs flapping around the world on completely inscrutable missions.
Enough about the
Poo Bah, he has nothing to do with education of the students. To the UNH’s
credit, the university finally told the truth:
"…we decided not
to finalize his arrangements to visit campus when it was determined his
appearance could potentially become politically polarizing in light of the
imminent presidential election."
I meander back to
my point here: we should give admin good faith credit for cancelling a speaker
that may cause harm to the students. But when the cancelled speakers
consistently come from one side of the political spectrum, and the admin lies
about their reasons for the “coincidental” cancellations, how much good faith
should be given before asking some hard questions here?
No comments:
Post a Comment