Gotta love progressive academia doing its damnedest to provide all the evidence no-college right wingers will ever need to decide not going to college was the smartest thing they ever did. And it's difficult to argue against the belief. That, and I thank GOD I majored in math, and with a single exception never had a political discussion in a math class. In fairness, never had one in a physics class either. Engineering classes were another matter. Ah, well.
The issue of free speech on campus puts me in mind of my senior year at the University of Oregon, spring of 1967, when I attended two campus speeches, one by George Rockwell, the leader of the American Nazi movement at that time (FYI, he spoke at the University of Wisconsin-Eue Claire that spring as well), and the other by Timothy Leary, who sat on the stage legs crossed and encouraged us to turn on, tune in, and drop out. I knew that Rockwell was despicable, and nothing he said persuaded me otherwise. I had already embraced the first part of Leary’s message, had only a passing interest in the second part, and my ambitions precluded taking him up on the third part. Much much later, when I was a professor, then an administrator at another university, among my several responsibilities was to oversee the selection of campus speakers and manage the associated budget. My philosophy (which appears to be out of date in this day) was to arrange for speakers with contrary views on an issue to appear together. One of the first pairs was Arriana Huffington and Tucker Carlson; others included William Buckley/George McGovern, Mary Matalin/James Carville, Newt Gingrich/Howard Dean (on health care). Now, even later, as I look back from the comfortable perch of the retired life, it saddens me to think that this approach and its underlying philosophy would not likely be available to me today. I did back then field a few complaints about bringing Newt Gingrich to campus, and I do agree with them that he is a despicable person, though not quite as despicable as George Rockwell. But even at its worse, the political environment then was not as poisonous and dangerous as it is today. I do recall that these pairs had conversations, and the saddest thing of all is that such conversations would not be possible today.
While I don’t think Pence should have been disinvited due to his beliefs, I think he should never have been considered due to his kowtowing to and covering for Trump and his assaults on the Constitution and the rule of law.
I agree that Mike Pence should not speak at UVA. NOT because of his religious beliefs or stand on social issues and LGBTQ+ rights.
He and every person who collaborated with Donald Trump's corrupt administration should be shunned by society in principal.
They should not be allowed to pretend that everything has moved on and now they can enjoy a new normal. Sunday talk shows should book NONE of them.
Their books should be burnt not because of the words written or ideas contained but because they the writers are odious hucksters cashing in on the corruption they helped perpetuate.
Society is disarmed when its ability to shame and shun has been lost.
Charlie, what on earth are you talking about? No really. Are you really, seriously, arguing that the right banning words and instituting censorship is due to... self censorship? Is that your arguement? Because it's not a good one. Whatever happens on college campuses, that's vastly different than using the power of the state to criminalize speech. And you can't be saying that 'oh, well, liberals can be intolerant so the right is doing the same thing.' That's nonsense. That's like saying in response to someone making a fire pit, you burned down their house.
Furthermore, the reason they were being dunked on was because they weren't being silenced! Who on earth thinks getting a NYT op ed is akin to being silenced? Next you'll say that Carlson is being silenced because he only gets a spot on television every night.
Beyond that, colleges and universities are not for debate! Schools are not for debate! They never have been! The point of going to school is not to debate the professor, it's to listen to them. The person who constantly feels the need to challenge the professor on everything is not helping anyone. Yes, sharing ideas can be good, but academically that only happens at the graduate level and the doctorate level, as it should! Because the reason you go to lectures and are going to college in the first place is to learn from the people who are teaching you. It's not to debate the teachers!
The censorship being attempted by the student bodies at so many colleges and universities is amazing. When I was in college, more than a few years ago, we might boycott or protest a speaker, but I never remember trying to prevent them from speaking. While I can give them the benefit of the doubt about their motives, it is clear they are not thinking through the consequences of their actions. Invite Pence to debate with a member of the university and challenge and engage speakers. This would seem to be a much more effective way to challenge their ideas. It might be quite entertaining to watch Pence trying to rationalize his views.
This really seems like a need for attention. I was in college and I remember coming up with all kinds of crazy ideas. I know professors love students who engage them, especially in a contrary way. Sure there may be a few curmudgeons, but would it really affect her grade? And to compare her speaking in class to Mike Pense speaking on stage are two different things. Pense is a big boy, he can take protests against himself. In fact, I'm sure he's pleased there are people who care enough about him to protest.
If I had a quarter for every time a college student BELIEVED he/she had been given a lower grade by a professor because of a difference in political opinion, I'd be a rich man. If I had a quarter for every time it ACTUALLY occurred, I'd be destitute.
One quick follow-on to Will Saletin's excellent article in today's Bulwark: The congressman for my district (NJ-2), the now-Republican Jeff Van Drew, is among the 40 of 63 who voted for the earlier pro-NATO resolution but against the one passed last week. I called his office to find why he voted no this time. A legislative aide said Van Drew was against the addition of a new "bureacracy" to NATO that is not relevant to its mission. This so-called "bureaucracy" is a mechanism to support democracy resilience in the alliance's members. If support for democracy is not part of NATO's, then what is??
"Weapons-grade illiberalism"? And below, JVL is quoted: "Conservativism, as it exists in the wild, not as an academic construct, no longer has any attachment whatsoever to free speech, except as a cudgel with which to pursue the exercise of power against its political opponents.” I'm with JVL. Colleges and universities are exactly the venues where young people forge their understanding of great concepts such as free speech. This process doesn't always look or sound nice. The current generation of young people has seen the authoritarian far-right corrupt and weaponize "free speech" to the extent of rendering the notion unintelligible and endangering lives. Heather Heyer, murdered in Charlottesville by a white nationalist the day after neo-Nazis marched with torches through the UVA campus, was one such life. Regarding Mike Pence, let us not forget that he sought every way possible to avoid thwarting trump, stayed silent about the pressure campaign being mounted against him for weeks, and only voiced his intention to carry out his constitutional obligations the day before violence broke out at the nation's Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Is it really unconscionable for students to protest Pence's presence at their school as a public speaker? Is it really "illiberal" to protest against such a man, who through acquiescence enabled violent, hateful speech from trump for 4 years? I think not. Especially at UVA, which was invaded by a pro-trump white supremacist mob. Context matters here. The trump years and the current Republican party are forcing a reconsideration of what free speech is--and is not. As usual, our students are leading the way.
Twitter is a sewer and it has always been thus. I never thought anything significant could be said in sixteen characters and I think I been proved right. The increase in number of characters allowed has not improved the situation.
Twitter is a sewer and it has always been thus. I never thought anything significant could be said in sixteen characters and I think I been proved right. The increase in number of characters allowed has not improved the situation.
Strange indeed that I always considered Pence, Romney, Liz Cheney, and Adam Kinzinger awful nightwing politicians. I still do. But I can honestly say they have become heroes of a sort for doing the right thing. Much facepalm.
"The student editors, who presumably had some interest in the First Amendment and related issues of free expression, came out strongly against even allowing Pence to speak."
Well no, they came out strongly against the University inviting him. Your formulation is hyperbolic to the point of inaccuracy.
It might seem a pointless distinction, but I assure you, it's the single most important factor in understanding why this is happening. This is, at heart, a fight over who owns the University. Not in a financial sense, in a social and cultural sense. Who does the University exist to serve? It's really the root of the entire culture war. Faculty see themselves as on a mission, students see themselves as the customers that they've been encouraged to be, and everyone has an idea of how the implement is supposed to be used, with nobody as final arbiter. We need to reunify around a shared conception of what society is supposed to be for. Atomizing it the way your statement does, making it just about freedom of speech, it leaves us unable to do anything other than treat symptoms, while the disease continues.
If we nuked social media out of existence today, we would be a lot better off. Things would improve even more if smart phones stopped working.
Too many people live too much in the virtual space of social media and not enough in the real world. I grew up before all of this (internet, personal computers, smart phones, even cable TV) existed.
That doesn't mean I am a tech illiterate or do not understand what is going on--I started programming in HS, did mainframe programming in Cobol, Fortran and PL/I back in the 80s, Novell certified, Cisco certified, taught Cisco networking and A+, taught digital graphic design for over decade.
Social media is poison... at least as it is currently constituted.
As is niche media.
As is all the BS that passes for information... the whole infotainment industry. Lump in "reality" TV with that mess. too.
Here is the thing that people, in general, do not seem to get:
In order for a society to function there must be a core structure of values and principles that must exist and it must be shared. If this does not exist, then you have a society that is waiting to fail and collapse.
This is particularly true of multi-ethnic, multi-cultural societies with a large geographic extent, such as the United States. This becomes even more crucial when you have a democratic political structure of some sort.
Note that I am talking about society NOT about culture. They are different things. Society, NOT ethnicity. Different things.
We are now in the midst of such a collapse. It is playing out before our very eyes.
It is only going to get worse. Only going to get more extreme at the ends.
Authoritarianism becomes attractive because it promises a resolution to the issue--a return to a shared world, even if by force. This is particularly attractive if you think you have the force and the will to pull it off.
The siren song of the authoritarians will only become stronger as time passes until it drowns out everything else--until people welcome it as a relief from the chaos and confusion. Liberty dies with thunderous applause.
One people. One nation. One leader... it resonates more in German.
It's a complex thing, owing its genesis to many factors, but the outcome is usually the same. It's usually not pretty. There will be a lot of losers, including a lot of people that think, initially, that they are winners.
The answer lies in creating that common set of values and principles. This is impossible to do, frankly, without silencing or canceling people. Both the Right and the Left know this and understand it (if not necessarily why). The reality is that certain things cannot and should not be said. certain people should not be allowed to speak. The narrative cannot be broken, the lie cannot be revealed, else it all falls apart.
Because they are passionate/afraid/angry and activated one or the other IS going to dictate the answer... because the people in the middle are not angry/afraid/passionate.
Maybe they should be? Before it is too late... it may already be too late.
The U.S. is unique among the three super powers, in having the combination of a very heterogeneous large population and a large geographic land mass. In some ways it’s surprising that we haven’t had more internal strife in our relatively short history.
I made one pass through the Haidt piece in The Atlantic, planning another read through. I think he mentioned the existence of a few well-run, benevolent authoritarian countries; the UAE? And I’m thinking of Singapore, although I don’t recall Haidt mentioning them.
I sometimes wonder if the U.S. is now too big and too diverse to work as a democracy. But it seems like authoritarian examples in the world are usually NOT benevolent. It’s interesting that they can be.
Also: We have had a fair amount of internal strife in our history.
Some of it has been ignored/submerged. Some of it was reclassified as other things (labor unrest, for example). A lot of racial strife that gets played down because the minority got squashed and had no meaningful voice, no power.
Plus we had an actual Civil War that killed more Americans than any other war we have been in (including two world wars).
Benevolence, like most things is in the eye of the beholder. The perception of benevolence is (like all perceptions) contextual.
What looks benevolent from the outside may not look that way from the inside.
What is benevolent in one culture is definitely not in another culture.
In order to make something like the US work, you need to find/construct core principles. These principles need to be built into the basic law (constitution). They need to be rigorously enforced and upheld.
You also need to do a lot of work to actively maintain them in the particular fashion in which you want them to exist. You need to be clear and strict about what words mean.
The law needs to be uniform, no 50 sets of laws for 50 states.
The law also needs to be cognizant of cultural and ethnic considerations but in a very limited sense. The goal is to construct a culture that allows cultural or ethnic "flavor" but that retains a core uniformity.
What this ultimately looks like or tends towards is more akin to the left than the right--in that the primary target of opprobrium is intolerance WRT to what are essentially personal issues--and there needs to be a clear line between personal and public.
In simple terms, there are things/issues/principles about which there is zero flexibility. There are areas where the individual is sovereign.
This is what the Founders were sort of striving for... but it is human nature to try an enforce group identity and conformity. It is necessary to a point--the argument is usually about where that point is--the ORIGINAL argument between the two major "parties" WAS about where that point was. The argument stopped being about that quite some time ago in other than a superficial sense--as an excuse for other things.
I would agree that Pence spews very hateful stuff BUT he has a right to be heard or at least I still think he does. Since the internet and social media there is a group that has come out of hiding that think no one has the right to speak unless it's what they agree with. I believe this has been caused in part by our former President who has encouraged the MAGA crowd to behave like he does. Apparently if you don't agree to cancel events you receive death threats and other Dump tactics. Sad world, especially for college students paying way too much to attend classes that don't allow them to express themselves. Pence should be allowed to speak so people can understand who he is and how he would function if ever elected to higher office.
Fair points, but it is also fair to ask if Pence will be equally open (to be challenged and questioned). Chances are he will talk this talking points and push his (& the GOP/conservative) agenda while turning a complete blind eye to the issues that agenda has caused (& continuing to cause for) democracy and the nation. He is also probably going to field some questions and (the "polished" politician that he is) respond with vague "non-answers". How are the students benefitting from all this? Ultimately if this is all about the students and exposing them to ideas, the speaker should come to facilitate that, share their PoV, be willing to debate and be questioned, have the patience to explain their side of the story. The students have the right to oppose one-sided agenda pushing. True for Pence as much as it is for anybody else.
You're definitely right about the typical politician's non-answer skills, and Pence is steadfast in that regard. But there's a lot of power in the questions alone, assuming the questions are informed and well constructed.
Agree with both Dick and you. It is better to hear Pence out than not to. It is also better to pose questions even if he dodges and slimes away from providing concrete answers. I am simply highlighting how much all of this is "staged", checkboxes that the University is likely checking, while the main stakeholders (the students) are being deprived of opportunities to learn.
Oh for crying out loud, let Pence speak. He’ll say Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Trump tried to have me killed, Jesus and then he’ll go home.
Gotta love progressive academia doing its damnedest to provide all the evidence no-college right wingers will ever need to decide not going to college was the smartest thing they ever did. And it's difficult to argue against the belief. That, and I thank GOD I majored in math, and with a single exception never had a political discussion in a math class. In fairness, never had one in a physics class either. Engineering classes were another matter. Ah, well.
The issue of free speech on campus puts me in mind of my senior year at the University of Oregon, spring of 1967, when I attended two campus speeches, one by George Rockwell, the leader of the American Nazi movement at that time (FYI, he spoke at the University of Wisconsin-Eue Claire that spring as well), and the other by Timothy Leary, who sat on the stage legs crossed and encouraged us to turn on, tune in, and drop out. I knew that Rockwell was despicable, and nothing he said persuaded me otherwise. I had already embraced the first part of Leary’s message, had only a passing interest in the second part, and my ambitions precluded taking him up on the third part. Much much later, when I was a professor, then an administrator at another university, among my several responsibilities was to oversee the selection of campus speakers and manage the associated budget. My philosophy (which appears to be out of date in this day) was to arrange for speakers with contrary views on an issue to appear together. One of the first pairs was Arriana Huffington and Tucker Carlson; others included William Buckley/George McGovern, Mary Matalin/James Carville, Newt Gingrich/Howard Dean (on health care). Now, even later, as I look back from the comfortable perch of the retired life, it saddens me to think that this approach and its underlying philosophy would not likely be available to me today. I did back then field a few complaints about bringing Newt Gingrich to campus, and I do agree with them that he is a despicable person, though not quite as despicable as George Rockwell. But even at its worse, the political environment then was not as poisonous and dangerous as it is today. I do recall that these pairs had conversations, and the saddest thing of all is that such conversations would not be possible today.
While I don’t think Pence should have been disinvited due to his beliefs, I think he should never have been considered due to his kowtowing to and covering for Trump and his assaults on the Constitution and the rule of law.
I agree that Mike Pence should not speak at UVA. NOT because of his religious beliefs or stand on social issues and LGBTQ+ rights.
He and every person who collaborated with Donald Trump's corrupt administration should be shunned by society in principal.
They should not be allowed to pretend that everything has moved on and now they can enjoy a new normal. Sunday talk shows should book NONE of them.
Their books should be burnt not because of the words written or ideas contained but because they the writers are odious hucksters cashing in on the corruption they helped perpetuate.
Society is disarmed when its ability to shame and shun has been lost.
Charlie, what on earth are you talking about? No really. Are you really, seriously, arguing that the right banning words and instituting censorship is due to... self censorship? Is that your arguement? Because it's not a good one. Whatever happens on college campuses, that's vastly different than using the power of the state to criminalize speech. And you can't be saying that 'oh, well, liberals can be intolerant so the right is doing the same thing.' That's nonsense. That's like saying in response to someone making a fire pit, you burned down their house.
Furthermore, the reason they were being dunked on was because they weren't being silenced! Who on earth thinks getting a NYT op ed is akin to being silenced? Next you'll say that Carlson is being silenced because he only gets a spot on television every night.
Beyond that, colleges and universities are not for debate! Schools are not for debate! They never have been! The point of going to school is not to debate the professor, it's to listen to them. The person who constantly feels the need to challenge the professor on everything is not helping anyone. Yes, sharing ideas can be good, but academically that only happens at the graduate level and the doctorate level, as it should! Because the reason you go to lectures and are going to college in the first place is to learn from the people who are teaching you. It's not to debate the teachers!
The censorship being attempted by the student bodies at so many colleges and universities is amazing. When I was in college, more than a few years ago, we might boycott or protest a speaker, but I never remember trying to prevent them from speaking. While I can give them the benefit of the doubt about their motives, it is clear they are not thinking through the consequences of their actions. Invite Pence to debate with a member of the university and challenge and engage speakers. This would seem to be a much more effective way to challenge their ideas. It might be quite entertaining to watch Pence trying to rationalize his views.
This really seems like a need for attention. I was in college and I remember coming up with all kinds of crazy ideas. I know professors love students who engage them, especially in a contrary way. Sure there may be a few curmudgeons, but would it really affect her grade? And to compare her speaking in class to Mike Pense speaking on stage are two different things. Pense is a big boy, he can take protests against himself. In fact, I'm sure he's pleased there are people who care enough about him to protest.
If I had a quarter for every time a college student BELIEVED he/she had been given a lower grade by a professor because of a difference in political opinion, I'd be a rich man. If I had a quarter for every time it ACTUALLY occurred, I'd be destitute.
One quick follow-on to Will Saletin's excellent article in today's Bulwark: The congressman for my district (NJ-2), the now-Republican Jeff Van Drew, is among the 40 of 63 who voted for the earlier pro-NATO resolution but against the one passed last week. I called his office to find why he voted no this time. A legislative aide said Van Drew was against the addition of a new "bureacracy" to NATO that is not relevant to its mission. This so-called "bureaucracy" is a mechanism to support democracy resilience in the alliance's members. If support for democracy is not part of NATO's, then what is??
"Weapons-grade illiberalism"? And below, JVL is quoted: "Conservativism, as it exists in the wild, not as an academic construct, no longer has any attachment whatsoever to free speech, except as a cudgel with which to pursue the exercise of power against its political opponents.” I'm with JVL. Colleges and universities are exactly the venues where young people forge their understanding of great concepts such as free speech. This process doesn't always look or sound nice. The current generation of young people has seen the authoritarian far-right corrupt and weaponize "free speech" to the extent of rendering the notion unintelligible and endangering lives. Heather Heyer, murdered in Charlottesville by a white nationalist the day after neo-Nazis marched with torches through the UVA campus, was one such life. Regarding Mike Pence, let us not forget that he sought every way possible to avoid thwarting trump, stayed silent about the pressure campaign being mounted against him for weeks, and only voiced his intention to carry out his constitutional obligations the day before violence broke out at the nation's Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Is it really unconscionable for students to protest Pence's presence at their school as a public speaker? Is it really "illiberal" to protest against such a man, who through acquiescence enabled violent, hateful speech from trump for 4 years? I think not. Especially at UVA, which was invaded by a pro-trump white supremacist mob. Context matters here. The trump years and the current Republican party are forcing a reconsideration of what free speech is--and is not. As usual, our students are leading the way.
:chefskiss:
Twitter is a sewer and it has always been thus. I never thought anything significant could be said in sixteen characters and I think I been proved right. The increase in number of characters allowed has not improved the situation.
Twitter is a sewer and it has always been thus. I never thought anything significant could be said in sixteen characters and I think I been proved right. The increase in number of characters allowed has not improved the situation.
Strange indeed that I always considered Pence, Romney, Liz Cheney, and Adam Kinzinger awful nightwing politicians. I still do. But I can honestly say they have become heroes of a sort for doing the right thing. Much facepalm.
"The student editors, who presumably had some interest in the First Amendment and related issues of free expression, came out strongly against even allowing Pence to speak."
Well no, they came out strongly against the University inviting him. Your formulation is hyperbolic to the point of inaccuracy.
It might seem a pointless distinction, but I assure you, it's the single most important factor in understanding why this is happening. This is, at heart, a fight over who owns the University. Not in a financial sense, in a social and cultural sense. Who does the University exist to serve? It's really the root of the entire culture war. Faculty see themselves as on a mission, students see themselves as the customers that they've been encouraged to be, and everyone has an idea of how the implement is supposed to be used, with nobody as final arbiter. We need to reunify around a shared conception of what society is supposed to be for. Atomizing it the way your statement does, making it just about freedom of speech, it leaves us unable to do anything other than treat symptoms, while the disease continues.
If we nuked social media out of existence today, we would be a lot better off. Things would improve even more if smart phones stopped working.
Too many people live too much in the virtual space of social media and not enough in the real world. I grew up before all of this (internet, personal computers, smart phones, even cable TV) existed.
That doesn't mean I am a tech illiterate or do not understand what is going on--I started programming in HS, did mainframe programming in Cobol, Fortran and PL/I back in the 80s, Novell certified, Cisco certified, taught Cisco networking and A+, taught digital graphic design for over decade.
Social media is poison... at least as it is currently constituted.
As is niche media.
As is all the BS that passes for information... the whole infotainment industry. Lump in "reality" TV with that mess. too.
Here is the thing that people, in general, do not seem to get:
In order for a society to function there must be a core structure of values and principles that must exist and it must be shared. If this does not exist, then you have a society that is waiting to fail and collapse.
This is particularly true of multi-ethnic, multi-cultural societies with a large geographic extent, such as the United States. This becomes even more crucial when you have a democratic political structure of some sort.
Note that I am talking about society NOT about culture. They are different things. Society, NOT ethnicity. Different things.
We are now in the midst of such a collapse. It is playing out before our very eyes.
It is only going to get worse. Only going to get more extreme at the ends.
Authoritarianism becomes attractive because it promises a resolution to the issue--a return to a shared world, even if by force. This is particularly attractive if you think you have the force and the will to pull it off.
The siren song of the authoritarians will only become stronger as time passes until it drowns out everything else--until people welcome it as a relief from the chaos and confusion. Liberty dies with thunderous applause.
One people. One nation. One leader... it resonates more in German.
It's a complex thing, owing its genesis to many factors, but the outcome is usually the same. It's usually not pretty. There will be a lot of losers, including a lot of people that think, initially, that they are winners.
The answer lies in creating that common set of values and principles. This is impossible to do, frankly, without silencing or canceling people. Both the Right and the Left know this and understand it (if not necessarily why). The reality is that certain things cannot and should not be said. certain people should not be allowed to speak. The narrative cannot be broken, the lie cannot be revealed, else it all falls apart.
Because they are passionate/afraid/angry and activated one or the other IS going to dictate the answer... because the people in the middle are not angry/afraid/passionate.
Maybe they should be? Before it is too late... it may already be too late.
The U.S. is unique among the three super powers, in having the combination of a very heterogeneous large population and a large geographic land mass. In some ways it’s surprising that we haven’t had more internal strife in our relatively short history.
I made one pass through the Haidt piece in The Atlantic, planning another read through. I think he mentioned the existence of a few well-run, benevolent authoritarian countries; the UAE? And I’m thinking of Singapore, although I don’t recall Haidt mentioning them.
I sometimes wonder if the U.S. is now too big and too diverse to work as a democracy. But it seems like authoritarian examples in the world are usually NOT benevolent. It’s interesting that they can be.
Also: We have had a fair amount of internal strife in our history.
Some of it has been ignored/submerged. Some of it was reclassified as other things (labor unrest, for example). A lot of racial strife that gets played down because the minority got squashed and had no meaningful voice, no power.
Plus we had an actual Civil War that killed more Americans than any other war we have been in (including two world wars).
Benevolence, like most things is in the eye of the beholder. The perception of benevolence is (like all perceptions) contextual.
What looks benevolent from the outside may not look that way from the inside.
What is benevolent in one culture is definitely not in another culture.
In order to make something like the US work, you need to find/construct core principles. These principles need to be built into the basic law (constitution). They need to be rigorously enforced and upheld.
You also need to do a lot of work to actively maintain them in the particular fashion in which you want them to exist. You need to be clear and strict about what words mean.
The law needs to be uniform, no 50 sets of laws for 50 states.
The law also needs to be cognizant of cultural and ethnic considerations but in a very limited sense. The goal is to construct a culture that allows cultural or ethnic "flavor" but that retains a core uniformity.
What this ultimately looks like or tends towards is more akin to the left than the right--in that the primary target of opprobrium is intolerance WRT to what are essentially personal issues--and there needs to be a clear line between personal and public.
In simple terms, there are things/issues/principles about which there is zero flexibility. There are areas where the individual is sovereign.
This is what the Founders were sort of striving for... but it is human nature to try an enforce group identity and conformity. It is necessary to a point--the argument is usually about where that point is--the ORIGINAL argument between the two major "parties" WAS about where that point was. The argument stopped being about that quite some time ago in other than a superficial sense--as an excuse for other things.
I would agree that Pence spews very hateful stuff BUT he has a right to be heard or at least I still think he does. Since the internet and social media there is a group that has come out of hiding that think no one has the right to speak unless it's what they agree with. I believe this has been caused in part by our former President who has encouraged the MAGA crowd to behave like he does. Apparently if you don't agree to cancel events you receive death threats and other Dump tactics. Sad world, especially for college students paying way too much to attend classes that don't allow them to express themselves. Pence should be allowed to speak so people can understand who he is and how he would function if ever elected to higher office.
Fair points, but it is also fair to ask if Pence will be equally open (to be challenged and questioned). Chances are he will talk this talking points and push his (& the GOP/conservative) agenda while turning a complete blind eye to the issues that agenda has caused (& continuing to cause for) democracy and the nation. He is also probably going to field some questions and (the "polished" politician that he is) respond with vague "non-answers". How are the students benefitting from all this? Ultimately if this is all about the students and exposing them to ideas, the speaker should come to facilitate that, share their PoV, be willing to debate and be questioned, have the patience to explain their side of the story. The students have the right to oppose one-sided agenda pushing. True for Pence as much as it is for anybody else.
You're definitely right about the typical politician's non-answer skills, and Pence is steadfast in that regard. But there's a lot of power in the questions alone, assuming the questions are informed and well constructed.
Agree with both Dick and you. It is better to hear Pence out than not to. It is also better to pose questions even if he dodges and slimes away from providing concrete answers. I am simply highlighting how much all of this is "staged", checkboxes that the University is likely checking, while the main stakeholders (the students) are being deprived of opportunities to learn.
And, if possible in the situation, to be able to ask challenging questions, after a speaker like Pence.