sundin13 said:
I mean, Eric really does nothing to answer my questions (probably because he wasn't responding to me). I haven't read all of your posts, but if it doesn't say any more than that, it probably doesn't answer me either. Again, should Universitites allow these people (ie "anyone") to speak in front of an organized assembly as hosted by the University in the manner that a University typically hosts outside speakers? Are we now arguing that free speech means you have to give people a platform (which isn't what free speech means), and if so, are there any limits to this idea? |
I'm sure there are probably some issues with speakers who try to force the campuses to let them speak, but the much bigger issue is that campuses seem to heavily favor far left speakers when purposely bringing people in to talk for events. What's happening are the groups of students who want at least some opposing viewpoints, are petitioning to have libertarian or conservative speakers, etc, and are being turned down or are being allowed but students holding more extremist viewpoints are doing what they can to stop those speakers. Those extremists seem to get away with it as well, and aren't being punished by the schools. What tends to happen is after a few attempts, the speakers will stop bothering to try and hold an event there because it's just too much of a hassle and a waste of their time, so the extremists get that they wanted, which of course, leads to even bigger bubbles and more extremism.
I don't think the university should have to let just anyone speak necessarily, but if a large enough audience wishes for a speaker to hold an event, I don't see why the university should reject it. If the university has to pay for some of it if not all, they should have some say, and need to find a balance. If the university has a large number of students who would like a certain course offered, should the university reject it simply because they don't offer it now, or because it isn't as relevant right now? Wouldn't you agree there are even classes that universities offer that are mostly just filler that don't serve much a useful purpose? Why do they offer them then? Mostly because it makes them money, money made from those students. So is university just a cash grab, or is it an experience as well?
I can't help but see the irony in the fact that some politicians talk about offering free schooling, yet those schools don't genuinely enforce a right like free speech.
PS1 - ! - We must build a console that can alert our enemies.
PS2 - @- We must build a console that offers online living room gaming.
PS3 - #- We must build a console that’s powerful, social, costs and does everything.
PS4 - $- We must build a console that’s affordable, charges for services, and pumps out exclusives.
PRO -%-We must build a console that's VR ready, checkerboard upscales, and sells but a fraction of the money printer.
PS5 - ^ -We must build a console that’s a generational cross product, with RT lighting, and price hiking.
PRO -&- We must build a console that Super Res upscales and continues the cost increases.
