OT: University of Chicago letter on free speech to incoming freshmen
- Thread starter mdk01
- Start date
Condi played Rutgers like a fiddle . She played the victim card to the hilt. Bengazi my ass. If anyone should be locked up that lady has the blood of thousands of Americans on her hands.Love to see her emails after receiving clear warnings that the US would be hit by terrorist strike. She was too busy improving her golf game to care.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/30/AR2006093000282.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/30/AR2006093000282.html
Last edited:
In regards to the second paragraph you never tried to explain yourself. You made an assertion without defining the logic or rain behind it. I asked for an example. You have provided none.
But I think that gets to the point ROTB was trying to make.
In regards to invited speakers, Rutgers made a statement similar to UofC's statement. That didn't stop anyone from verbally dissenting, and it didn't stop Rice from declining. And it wouldn't make a difference at Chicago either. While the Chicago policy (like Rutgers') says they won't rescind the invitation, it explicitly encourages disagreement, challenging, and debate. There is nothing to stop prospective speakers from withdrawing if they are looking to avoid challenges to their credentials and debate on their legacies.
As far as trigger warnings, I agree with you that even without a formal trigger warning policy, the Chicago letter could help change the culture that professors are expected to give trigger warnings. Of course this is only meaningful if that culture is in place, or growing.
Upstream, you're right. But keep in mind that most speakers are not invited by the campus administration. Instead they are invited by registered student organizations. The U of C is saying that it is not going to give in to, say, the Palestinian sympathizers saying that a Jewish group shouldn't be inviting a speaker, or vice versa. That sends out a powerful signal that student groups should feel free to invite who they like, and that the administration will not tolerate interference by others.
Great letter.
It is ridiculous how people/companies/universities tie themselves in knots so as not to offend any single person.
It is an impossible task.
I have no problem with "say firefighter, not fireman" Putting an awareness into people is fine.
I was just told last week that "Oriental" is an offensive term...never knew that and still don't know why
but apparently you should say "Asiatic" I am not opposed to learning and when I finish this post I am going to look up why some find Oriental to be offensive. If it is a legitimate argument I will try to never use that term again.
Microagressions...give me a break!. And if that makes me an asshole, so be it. But you can call me out on it and I won't need to go hide in my safe space. Hell we give our best friends crap about their appearance , their upbringing, their heritage, even their Momma ( no, no , not about the Momma) and they give it right back. We do not take offense.
It is ridiculous how people/companies/universities tie themselves in knots so as not to offend any single person.
It is an impossible task.
I have no problem with "say firefighter, not fireman" Putting an awareness into people is fine.
I was just told last week that "Oriental" is an offensive term...never knew that and still don't know why
but apparently you should say "Asiatic" I am not opposed to learning and when I finish this post I am going to look up why some find Oriental to be offensive. If it is a legitimate argument I will try to never use that term again.
Microagressions...give me a break!. And if that makes me an asshole, so be it. But you can call me out on it and I won't need to go hide in my safe space. Hell we give our best friends crap about their appearance , their upbringing, their heritage, even their Momma ( no, no , not about the Momma) and they give it right back. We do not take offense.
Are there any examples (at Rutgers, Chicago, or any other major research university) where the administration has told a student group that they need to disinvite a speaker due to political unpopularity?
Why not say "firewoman"?
That's the clue
See all this mess isn't about "inclusion" its about certain angry women's groups angry about being weaker sex and forcing society to accept their fantasy that both sexes are the same.
Despite women failing fire training tests and military tests (in sweeping fashion btw) we are forced to use them anyway and called names if we don't. Its a head-trip
Almost nobody trapped in a fire would hope for a "firewoman" to find them instead of a "fireman". So the firewoman name never gets used and we have to fudge the lines as if there's no difference (a reason we have bathroom drama while real problems get ignored).
Everything masculine is being attacked as "toxic" by the kooks in media and cancerous academia. Don't fall for the benign inclusion excuse. For every few people we have to avoid "insulting" their are large masses we can insult along the way - often in irrational fashion
Not to my knowledge, but that's not the point. The point is that a group may feel deterred from bringing in a speaker because of the fear that the school will not be aggressive in preventing disruption by another group.
Whats funny is if you read the quotes from people in the CIA (And I doubt almost anyone on this board is one of them), the intel for what Secretary Rice said at the time was stronger than the intel they had on where Bin Laden was in 2011. None of us are in the position the people we critique are. And btw, what does Benghazi have to do with her? that was 2012, four years into the next administration. I'll limit the rest of my comments to fit the feelings of my second sentence.
Condi handled the speaking invitation professionally and with curtesy. She accepted the invitation, but when it became clear that her presence would be a major distraction to the graduation, she bowed out. Exactly the right thing to do. And when the University reiterated its invitation, she declined, giving the admin the out it needed. Just what she should have done.
As to the July 2001 meeting, that is just Bob Woodward trying to get back into the limelight. His account of the meeting in no way jibes with Tenet's own description of the meeting under oath.
I'm not a fan or a hater of Rice, but she treated RU with respect.
Being that those in support of the letter think students these days are soft and wimpy; I find it ironic that people will be deterred from inviting speakers unless the university has this policy. What is more soft and wimpy than worrying that someone else won't like the speaker you like?
Also I haven't touched on the safe spaces but guess what? This board is a safe space. I've seen dozens of people who I'm sure think they don't need a safe space complain when this safe space is violated. A safe space just means there are rules of what can and cannot happen. It is new and somewhat stilted terminology but they have always existed and the University of Chicago supports them. It is required for them to function as an institution.
As for the scarlet nation football board this is a safe space for football talk. Personal attacks, specific language, and other clearly stated conditions are considered a violation. Posters who violate that will have their posts moved, deleted, or be penalized from participating. This thread is actually a violation. If at any point a complaint is made this thread will be moved to the current events board.
I'm sure today that many people visited safe spaces for their religious beliefs.
All these complaints are primarily from people who don't like people messing with their status quo. They have their own safe spaces, get triggered by meaningless events such as how one silently sits or positions their hands during the anthem, and complain when speakers they don't like get a platform, but don't see themselves as intimidated by strange ideas. It's those other people that don't agree with them and bother to open their mouths, and use terminology that is different and doesn't sound like the old terminology that are soft and wimpy.
We all know and have experienced the usual level of political dogma found at most universities. Young people are pretty impressionable at that age and many of my professors were clearly on the left side of the political aisle. Questioning their views may not have been the best idea.
Kudos to U. of Chicago for being up front with what they clearly expect from everyone.
Kudos to U. of Chicago for being up front with what they clearly expect from everyone.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali at Brandeis
Robert Zoellick at Swarthmore
Ben Stein at UVM
I'm sure there are more.
Wrong. Stein and Zoellick withdrew. They weren't uninvited. Ali was welcome to speak but the offer that the university withdrew was that of an honorary degree. An honorary degree is far different from a speaking engagement.
Similar threads
