Good column, Glenn, but my built-in "Devil's advocate" wants to know how far "Shady Grove College" is prepared to go to defend its "neutrality". Is it reasonable for an educational institution to support the free expression of all opinions, no matter how outlandish? Let me pose a hypothetical but I think plausible "heckler's veto" scenario:
A student group or academic department invites a professor from another university to give a talk at Shady Grove. The invited speaker, who has published highly respected work in the fields of history, sociology, and economics, has a reputation for stimulating vigorous debate by challenging his audiences to grapple with controversial ideas. The title of his proposed talk is "Bringing Back Slavery: Pros and Cons". Those familiar with the speaker's work in this area know that after a rigorous logical analysis, he always comes down firmly on the anti-slavery side. However, a group of militant protestors, some from within the campus community and some from outside it, claim that the mere title of the lecture marks the speaker indelibly as a "genocidal white-supremacist lunatic", and vows to "burn the campus to the ground" if the talk takes place. So, should Shady Grove stand its ground and proceed as planned, regardless of the apparent serious threat to campus safety, while also taking whatever precautions may be necessary to head off any violence, no matter how expensive those measures might turn out to be?
Good column, Glenn, but my built-in "Devil's advocate" wants to know how far "Shady Grove College" is prepared to go to defend its "neutrality". Is it reasonable for an educational institution to support the free expression of all opinions, no matter how outlandish? Let me pose a hypothetical but I think plausible "heckler's veto" scenario:
A student group or academic department invites a professor from another university to give a talk at Shady Grove. The invited speaker, who has published highly respected work in the fields of history, sociology, and economics, has a reputation for stimulating vigorous debate by challenging his audiences to grapple with controversial ideas. The title of his proposed talk is "Bringing Back Slavery: Pros and Cons". Those familiar with the speaker's work in this area know that after a rigorous logical analysis, he always comes down firmly on the anti-slavery side. However, a group of militant protestors, some from within the campus community and some from outside it, claim that the mere title of the lecture marks the speaker indelibly as a "genocidal white-supremacist lunatic", and vows to "burn the campus to the ground" if the talk takes place. So, should Shady Grove stand its ground and proceed as planned, regardless of the apparent serious threat to campus safety, while also taking whatever precautions may be necessary to head off any violence, no matter how expensive those measures might turn out to be?