Quote:The William F. Buckley, Jr. Program at Yale has announced its “First Annual Disinvitation Dinner,” scheduled for April 15 in New York City. The plan is to regularly honor distinguished guests who were invited to speak at American universities and then subsequently disinvited because their views did not comport with progressive campus orthodoxy.

Quote:Columnist George Will, who will keynote this year’s dinner in Manhattan, was disinvited last year from California’s Scripps College. He earned the ire of the academic left by questioning Obama Administration statistics on campus sexual offenses and suggesting that overly broad definitions of assault trivialize actual crimes.

Quote:The organization recently welcomed to the Yale campus Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who was offered an honorary degree and then turned down by Brandeis University because she dares to criticize Islamist ideology.

A great day for free speech.

Do you have a link? Not being snarky, I just want to read more about it.

And Yale is doing this? As in the Yale in New Haven, CT?

(02-19-2015 09:52 AM)All Dukes_All Day Wrote:  Do you have a link? Not being snarky, I just want to read more about it.

And Yale is doing this? As in the Yale in New Haven, CT?

WSJ Link

WFB Program

Very nice. I subscribed for their updates.

I did get to see William F. Buckley debate John Kenneth Gallbraith on the Rice campus circa 1986-1987.

Not being invited (or being disinvited) to speak at a university is not exactly preventing free speech.

(02-19-2015 03:54 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Not being invited (or being disinvited) to speak at a university is not exactly preventing free speech.

Thanks for your opinion.

(02-19-2015 03:54 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Not being invited (or being disinvited) to speak at a university is not exactly preventing free speech.

And the point of this post is to refute what?

(02-19-2015 04:04 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 03:54 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Not being invited (or being disinvited) to speak at a university is not exactly preventing free speech.

And the point of this post is to refute what?

"A great day for free speech".

(02-19-2015 04:06 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 04:04 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 03:54 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Not being invited (or being disinvited) to speak at a university is not exactly preventing free speech.

And the point of this post is to refute what?

"A great day for free speech".

It amazes me how people can continually interpet:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

as being able to say what you want, whenever and wherever you want without repercussions.

(02-19-2015 04:13 PM)ODUChm Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 04:06 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 04:04 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 03:54 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Not being invited (or being disinvited) to speak at a university is not exactly preventing free speech.

And the point of this post is to refute what?

"A great day for free speech".

It amazes me how people can continually interpet:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

as being able to say what you want, whenever and wherever you want without repercussions.

Of course you are correct in a strict constitutional analysis.

But this post was written to include the generalized understanding that we in these United States bestow on opinions that address important issues by thoughtful individuals that offer a sometimes unique perspective.

In particular, colleges and universities have long represented themselves as the "marketplace of ideas" where ideas, including unpopular ones, could be expressed and answered in a polite manner.

What we now have is colleges and universities specifically taking actions to prohibit the university community from hearing these ideas because a portion of the university community would be offended. This is at the heart of the Buckley group.

The case of Ayaan Hirsi Ali is of special note since her dis-invite at Yale stands in gross contrast to the appearance of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at Columbia University. His speech was also subject of protest but the President of Columbia wrote: "The event will be part of..... the University-wide initiative intended to further Columbia’s longstanding tradition of serving as a major forum for robust debate, especially on global issues, and also for closing the area to outside protesters." Seems like Yale could learn something from Columbia.

Amazes me that many misconstrue a strict Constitutional interpretation for the generally accepted idea of being able to voice your opinion without having to be shouted down.

That's what free speech is really about. If this offends you, tough.

(02-19-2015 05:44 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 04:13 PM)ODUChm Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 04:06 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 04:04 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 03:54 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Not being invited (or being disinvited) to speak at a university is not exactly preventing free speech.

And the point of this post is to refute what?

"A great day for free speech".

It amazes me how people can continually interpet:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

as being able to say what you want, whenever and wherever you want without repercussions.

Of course you are correct in a strict constitutional analysis.

But this post was written to include the generalized understanding that we in these United States bestow on opinions that address important issues by thoughtful individuals that offer a sometimes unique perspective.

In particular, colleges and universities have long represented themselves as the "marketplace of ideas" where ideas, including unpopular ones, could be expressed and answered in a polite manner.

What we now have is colleges and universities specifically taking actions to prohibit the university community from hearing these ideas because a portion of the university community would be offended. This is at the heart of the Buckley group.

The case of Ayaan Hirsi Ali is of special note since her dis-invite at Yale stands in gross contrast to the appearance of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at Columbia University. His speech was also subject of protest but the President of Columbia wrote: "The event will be part of..... the University-wide initiative intended to further Columbia’s longstanding tradition of serving as a major forum for robust debate, especially on global issues, and also for closing the area to outside protesters." Seems like Yale could learn something from Columbia.

Amazes me that many misconstrue a strict Constitutional interpretation for the generally accepted idea of being able to voice your opinion without having to be shouted down.

That's what free speech is really about. If this offends you, tough.

Again, this has nothing to do with freedom of speech, so its not a victory for freedom of speech.

If you want to argue its a freedom for open mindess or rational thinking I can see that.

People have the right to make their views known, no matter how controversial, and other people have the right to protest that formers public appearance, and no matter what either side says they don't have to fear persecution by the government, that is what a victory for free speech is.

FWIW, I agree with you (outside of commencement speeches maybe), we should hear what opposing viewpoint have to say whether its on univseral healthcare or how the NWO is a Jewish conspiracy. I believe in fighting opposing viewpoints of a serious nature with logic and reason, unfortunatley most people respond with emotion.

(02-19-2015 03:54 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Not being invited (or being disinvited) to speak at a university is not exactly preventing free speech.

STFU




(also not an example of preventing free speech)


...also not an example of preventing free speech - Charlie Hedbo (though certain individuals will no longer be able to exercise free speech)


Perhaps it's a misnomer but the fighting the disquieting manner in which spoiled, self-important children can disrupt dissenting voices is perhaps too wordy a phrase to use for a cause, even if it is more accurate.

(02-19-2015 03:54 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Not being invited (or being disinvited) to speak at a university is not exactly preventing free speech.

Campus libs routinely refuse to allow people like George Will to speak. Those that get to campus are often physically threatened; they require body guards.

The left doesn't want to debate. They want the opposition silenced.

Delicious academic apostasy. Mmmm