You can, though I wasn't really thinking about it from a taxpayer's perspective. I was thinking about it from a tuition-paying-student's perspective, so it would apply to public as well as private schools.
And of course I never meant to suggest that university professors should be muzzled slaves (thus my comment about West Bank-settlement critiques and censuring professors). I just wonder about curtailing the ability of self-funded groups to invite whomever they wish to campus by holding the invitees to a scholarly standard. If the university itself invites a speaker (for example, at commencement), then yes, that standard is reasonable. But again, what if some random club not funded by student fees wants to invite some super-controversial comedian or pundit to its shindig that will happen to be held on campus. Are we not muzzling that club by saying, "Nope. He/She isn't intellectual enough"?
Many good points in here. I wonder, though, about the wisdom of holding invited speakers to the same standards as professors. The former are invited to campus by special-interest clubs (e.g., the BCR), and presumably paid a stipend out of a dues-based fund unique to each club. The latter are salaried employees, paid presumably from a budget drawn from the tuition paid by all students. If I’m a student at University X, and I learn that well-known provocateur Dick Spencer is speaking Friday night at the College Republicans’ meeting room at the student center, I can say, “Boy, what a waster of their money”, avoid his inevitable racist diatribe, and instead watch a screening of “The War Room” over at the College Democrats’ meeting room. Dickie ends his speech, packs his things, and leaves campus, hopefully never to be heard from again.
If, however, Professor Dick Spencer of the Political Science Department, whose salary I am, in part, paying, takes to Twitter Friday night to unleash a racist diatribe, I now have to think, “Wait a second. I’m paying this idiot’s salary? And now the whole Twitterverse thinks that he somehow represents my University, of which I’d like to feel some pride in attending?”
In this scenario, isn’t the fact that the invited-speaker version of Spencer will turn tail and leave after his speech, whereas the tenured-professor version of Spencer will remain a presence on campus indefinitely, precisely the reason to NOT hold invited speakers to the same standards as professors?
Not that a racist diatribe on Twitter is remotely close to criticizing West Bank settlements (and no professor should be censured by a university administration for making a cogent and reasoned critique), but today’s Coulter or Spencer could be tomorrow’s Carlin or Pryor (meaning an offensive-to-some speaker a select group on campus wants to pay and hear, even if no one else wants to). How far do you take restrictions on whom these self-funding clubs can invite?
Now, having so wondered, I do think Robert Cohen's piece on what Mario Savio might have thought about this controversy is well worth considering, particularly this line:
"His answer, of course, was not to repress speech but to urge speakers and listeners to think critically about their discourse."
You can, though I wasn't really thinking about it from a taxpayer's perspective. I was thinking about it from a tuition-paying-student's perspective, so it would apply to public as well as private schools.
And of course I never meant to suggest that university professors should be muzzled slaves (thus my comment about West Bank-settlement critiques and censuring professors). I just wonder about curtailing the ability of self-funded groups to invite whomever they wish to campus by holding the invitees to a scholarly standard. If the university itself invites a speaker (for example, at commencement), then yes, that standard is reasonable. But again, what if some random club not funded by student fees wants to invite some super-controversial comedian or pundit to its shindig that will happen to be held on campus. Are we not muzzling that club by saying, "Nope. He/She isn't intellectual enough"?
Many good points in here. I wonder, though, about the wisdom of holding invited speakers to the same standards as professors. The former are invited to campus by special-interest clubs (e.g., the BCR), and presumably paid a stipend out of a dues-based fund unique to each club. The latter are salaried employees, paid presumably from a budget drawn from the tuition paid by all students. If I’m a student at University X, and I learn that well-known provocateur Dick Spencer is speaking Friday night at the College Republicans’ meeting room at the student center, I can say, “Boy, what a waster of their money”, avoid his inevitable racist diatribe, and instead watch a screening of “The War Room” over at the College Democrats’ meeting room. Dickie ends his speech, packs his things, and leaves campus, hopefully never to be heard from again.
If, however, Professor Dick Spencer of the Political Science Department, whose salary I am, in part, paying, takes to Twitter Friday night to unleash a racist diatribe, I now have to think, “Wait a second. I’m paying this idiot’s salary? And now the whole Twitterverse thinks that he somehow represents my University, of which I’d like to feel some pride in attending?”
In this scenario, isn’t the fact that the invited-speaker version of Spencer will turn tail and leave after his speech, whereas the tenured-professor version of Spencer will remain a presence on campus indefinitely, precisely the reason to NOT hold invited speakers to the same standards as professors?
Not that a racist diatribe on Twitter is remotely close to criticizing West Bank settlements (and no professor should be censured by a university administration for making a cogent and reasoned critique), but today’s Coulter or Spencer could be tomorrow’s Carlin or Pryor (meaning an offensive-to-some speaker a select group on campus wants to pay and hear, even if no one else wants to). How far do you take restrictions on whom these self-funding clubs can invite?
Now, having so wondered, I do think Robert Cohen's piece on what Mario Savio might have thought about this controversy is well worth considering, particularly this line:
"His answer, of course, was not to repress speech but to urge speakers and listeners to think critically about their discourse."
https://www.thenation.com/article/what-might-mario-savio-have-said-about-the-milo-protest-at-berkeley/