Gonzaga to allow Shapiro Speech

[bartruff1]

He will just sing to the choir ….they only people that will take him seriously are the people who hold the same views....

[Kong-Kool-Aid]

I still am waiting for an Answer to this.

I'm purposefully avoiding making this a bigger discussion than what it already is.

If you don't feel statements such as these are hateful I'm not sure we are going to agree with much.

"Israelis like to build. Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage. This is not a difficult issue. #settlementsrock"

"Trayvon Martin would have turned 21 today if he hadn't taken a man's head and beaten it on the pavement before being shot."

Him opening his Berkley speech with stuff like this, (as quoted in the earlier pinion piece posted) doesn't strike me as a voice that needs to be promoted by the University. He's a blowhard and the only reason he was asked to speak was for this exact controversy.

Toward the beginning, he addressed Antifa protesters, whom he called “communist pieces of garbage”: “You guys are so stupid… you can all go to hell, you pathetic, lying, stupid jackasses.” According to the Times, there is a wide gulf between Trump/Yiannopoulos-style vulgar conservatism and Shapiro-style Logical conservatism, but I just am not sure that I see in “Go to hell, you communist piece of garbage” the kind of “polemical brilliance” that Shapiro is reputed to demonstrate. The rest of the speech, when it got beyond making Botox jokes about Nancy Pelosi, was strong on insults (“pusillanimous cowards,” “hard-Left morons,” “uncivilized barbarians”) and light on actual argumentation and substantive factual claims. Shapiro did say that the alt-right are full of “bull####” and that the left overstates the threat posed by Shapiro’s speeches. (Both true.) The main thrust of the speech, though, is that America is the greatest country in the world, that there are no real injustices facing black people, women, and poor people, and that if you don’t do well economically here it’s entirely your fault. As he says:

This country is an amazing place full of opportunity. Nobody, by and large, cares enough about you to stop you from achieving your dreams. That includes you, people who are shouting out there in the audience. No one cares about you; get over yourselves. I don’t care about you; no one cares about you…That means, in a free country, if you fail, it’s probably your own fault.

[LongIslandZagFan]

Going to say a few things and move on.

1) GU should allow almost anyone to speak... conservative/liberal whatever... but not one that espouses hate. Based on the logic I am seeing here... Hitler would have to have been allowed to speak.
2) Most here complaining about him not speaking would probably complain about a very liberal speaker... so there is probably a bit of hypocrisy going on.
3) This is a blatant attempt by the inviting group at playing "Gotcha" with GU. I don't see it as anything more than that. As others have said, there are plenty of conservative thinkers they could have invited

[Zagceo]

Ben Shapiros views have been spewed across colleges campuses and YouTube for years...nothing new.

Invite someone like Camille Paglia or Jordan Peterson deep thinkers imo.

https://spectator.us/camille-paglia-hillary-trump/

[thespywhozaggedme]

He will just sing to the choir ….they only people that will take him seriously are the people who hold the same views....

That's a very disheartening p.o.v. It tells me that you only take seriously those that share the same belief system as you. What ever happened to listening to all perspectives and then drawing a well reasoned conclusion instead of immediately discounting someone simply because they have an opinion that differs from your own?

[thespywhozaggedme]

Going to say a few things and move on.

1) GU should allow almost anyone to speak... conservative/liberal whatever... but not one that espouses hate. Based on the logic I am seeing here... Hitler would have to have been allowed to speak. Comparing a jew to Hitler is despicable, shame on you.
2) Most here complaining about him not speaking would probably complain about a very liberal speaker... so there is probably a bit of hypocrisy going on. Nope, I believe in letting all voices be heard, especially those that I disagree with. Anyone can be tolerant of those that share the same point of view, where;'s the nobility in that?
3) This is a blatant attempt by the inviting group at playing "Gotcha" with GU. I don't see it as anything more than that. As others have said, there are plenty of conservative thinkers they could have invited. Why is it your business to tell people who they want to hear speak? That's seems pretty intolerant of you.

My answers in red. Gotta admit, I'm pretty disappointed in your post. I think I'll just stick to basketball. Sigh

[thespywhozaggedme]

I'm purposefully avoiding making this a bigger discussion than what it already is.

If you don't feel statements such as these are hateful I'm not sure we are going to agree with much.

"Israelis like to build. Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage. This is not a difficult issue. #settlementsrock"

"Trayvon Martin would have turned 21 today if he hadn't taken a man's head and beaten it on the pavement before being shot."

Him opening his Berkley speech with stuff like this, (as quoted in the earlier pinion piece posted) doesn't strike me as a voice that needs to be promoted by the University. He's a blowhard and the only reason he was asked to speak was for this exact controversy.

Toward the beginning, he addressed Antifa protesters, whom he called “communist pieces of garbage”: “You guys are so stupid… you can all go to hell, you pathetic, lying, stupid jackasses.” According to the Times, there is a wide gulf between Trump/Yiannopoulos-style vulgar conservatism and Shapiro-style Logical conservatism, but I just am not sure that I see in “Go to hell, you communist piece of garbage” the kind of “polemical brilliance” that Shapiro is reputed to demonstrate. The rest of the speech, when it got beyond making Botox jokes about Nancy Pelosi, was strong on insults (“pusillanimous cowards,” “hard-Left morons,” “uncivilized barbarians”) and light on actual argumentation and substantive factual claims. Shapiro did say that the alt-right are full of “bull####” and that the left overstates the threat posed by Shapiro’s speeches. (Both true.) The main thrust of the speech, though, is that America is the greatest country in the world, that there are no real injustices facing black people, women, and poor people, and that if you don’t do well economically here it’s entirely your fault. As he says:

This country is an amazing place full of opportunity. Nobody, by and large, cares enough about you to stop you from achieving your dreams. That includes you, people who are shouting out there in the audience. No one cares about you; get over yourselves. I don’t care about you; no one cares about you…That means, in a free country, if you fail, it’s probably your own fault.

Context is key. Some of those statements I agree with, some I do not, but what is the context? Besides, so what if you're offended? Nothing happens to you, you don't get permanent diarrhea or grow a 3rd thumb if someone offends you. You don't have a right to not be offended. You do have a right to not care for what someone is saying, but the amount of hubris that it takes to tell someone else what they should be allowed to listen to, or how they should think borders on fascistic behavior.

[thespywhozaggedme]

By the way, this is my last post in this thread. I'm so despondent by the fact that so many posters that I like in the bball forum are so intolerant of divergent opinion really makes me think what kind of a future there will be for my young girls. If they refuse to think, act, speak and vote a certain way will they be branded with a scarlet letter "C"? Voltaire would be rolling over in his grave. sigh

[bartruff1]

Well, I am not despondent ...but I do have diarrhea …..sad...

The students have a right to hear who they want to speak....if is hubris to tell them who they should want to hear...what nonsense...

I will add that I would also support ANY liberal that was invited to speak..

[LTownZag]

This rounds up a lot (but not all) of the reasons I don't take him seriously as an "intellectual" or any sort of moral voice.

https://static.currentaffairs.org/20...ds-philosopher

Without agreeing or disagreeing with your assessment here, why would this be relevant criteria for denying a campus club the right to host him?

I'm simply interested in the principle as it ought to be applied in your view, as though behind a veil of ignorance regarding the specific club and specific speaker. What kind of standard would you suggest the University use toward a student club (in this case the College Republicans) in allowing or vetoing speakers? Obviously there are all kinds of hosted speakers who might talk about athletics, recreation, tech, travel, etc who wouldn't be described (even by themselves) as serious moral or intellectual voices.

[Bouldin4Prez]

By the way, this is my last post in this thread. I'm so despondent by the fact that so many posters that I like in the bball forum are so intolerant of divergent opinion really makes me think what kind of a future there will be for my young girls. If they refuse to think, act, speak and vote a certain way will they be branded with a scarlet letter "C"? Voltaire would be rolling over in his grave. sigh

You're also the same guy that said that he didn't want female GU students allowed into games because they don't cheer loud enough. I'm very concerned of the future there will be for your young girls as well. I agree, however, that Shapiro should be allowed to speak even though I don't necessarily agree with most he says.

[thespywhozaggedme]

You're also the same guy that said that he didn't want female GU students allowed into games because they don't cheer loud enough. I'm very concerned of the future there will be for your young girls as well. I agree, however, that Shapiro should be allowed to speak even though I don't necessarily agree with most he says.

I know i said that I was done with this thread,and I've spewed a lot of nonsense on these boards over the years, but I'm pretty sure that wasn't me. Can you provide a link to me posting that? Thanks

[Kong-Kool-Aid]

By the way, this is my last post in this thread. I'm so despondent by the fact that so many posters that I like in the bball forum are so intolerant of divergent opinion really makes me think what kind of a future there will be for my young girls. If they refuse to think, act, speak and vote a certain way will they be branded with a scarlet letter "C"? Voltaire would be rolling over in his grave. sigh

I'm intolerant of hate speech, as well as hateful speech and rhetoric which not a protected right. I have no problem with a conservative speaker at Gonzaga, I have a problem with Gonzaga giving speakers who have a history of hate filled diatribes a platform, regardless of their political leanings.

No, I would not be okay with David Duke being given a platform at Gonzaga either.

[Zagceo]

I'm intolerant of hate speech, as well as hateful speech and rhetoric which not a protected right. I have no problem with a conservative speaker at Gonzaga, I have a problem with Gonzaga giving speakers who have a history of hate filled diatribes a platform, regardless of their political leanings.

No, I would not be okay with David Duke being given a platform at Gonzaga either.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.9907f0165c8d

[Kong-Kool-Aid]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.9907f0165c8d

Hate speech that promotes or incites violence is not a protected right. Hate speech that is more general in tone and cannot be directly linked with violence is protected, I suppose I could have been more clear with my sentence structure. But ultimately you are splitting hairs.

Neither the protected or not-protected versions of hate speech should be promoted by or encouraged by Gonzaga University.

Anyway, this discussion is getting us nowhere, back to Basketball where we can mostly all agree.

[Zagceo]

https://www.gonzagabulletin.com/news...ntent=headline

[RenoZag]

This would not have happened under Robert Spitzer's presidency.

In 2000 and 2001, Spitzer barred a Planned Parenthood speaker and an on-campus performance of “The Vagina Monologues,” an all-woman play made up of monologues about sex, masturbation and lesbianism.

Critics said the decisions undercut academic freedom. Spitzer said a Catholic university could not appear to endorse ideas that challenge church opposition to abortion, birth control and homosexuality.

After those controversies, the university adopted a policy governing outside speakers. Barred are those who are disruptive, promote a message contrary to the school’s Catholic teachings or might create a hostile learning environment.

SOURCE: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...i-gay-speaker/

Would Spitzer have an issue with a faculty member whose lifestyle challenged church opposition to homosexuality ?

https://www.gonzagabulletin.com/arts...d281e025f.html

[Zagceo]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v-hIVnmUdXM

starts out a little slow but builds to nice finish

2 professors that should be on the college circuit imo

[LongIslandZagFan]

My answers in red. Gotta admit, I'm pretty disappointed in your post. I think I'll just stick to basketball. Sigh

A) Not comparing him to Hitler, just pointing out that based on the logic that ANYONE should be heard... Hitler comes to mind as someone who should NEVER have a platform but would. Fine... replace him with Stalin... both were cool with genocide/mass displacement of people (like this guy is)... it was pointing out the flawed logic of anyone should have a platform.

B) Trust me... there are many hypocrites on this board that would pull money and have serious issues if someone on the extreme left was invited to speak at GU. I've seen it in the past... history tells me I am quite right about that.

c) Not telling anyone who they can or want to listen to... but be perfectly honest with yourself... inviting someone who is known to be very controversial and goes against much of the teachings of the Church and the university isn't about anything other than being provocative. I'd say the same thing if it was a liberal group doing the same thing. It is a game of gotcha instead of being intellectually honest.

I'm done with this thread.

[bartruff1]

I have no idea what hate speech is …..and I doubt anyone else does.....we used to listen to Hitler and Tokyo Rose on short wave radios during WW11.....I respect the UN model that apparently allows all voices to be heard.....listening is not agreeing....no way this guys will incite a riot...

One man's terrorist is the other man's freedom fighter....I find heretics to be interesting...the church's don't..

At WSU the Young Republicans are putting up a Trump Wall.....that is fine with me....that is speech....

[former1dog]

Would Spitzer have an issue with a faculty member whose lifestyle challenged church opposition to homosexuality ?

https://www.gonzagabulletin.com/arts...d281e025f.html

Point of order.

Strictly speaking, the church is not opposed to homosexuality.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_cs...m/p3s2c2a6.htm

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

[webspinnre]

Feel like we're back in the OCC...

[zagfan24]

I miss the OCC. I actually do. It may have been 2 separate echo chambers, but I thought the discourse was actually, almost always, respectful...if not productive.

This issue is a lot more complex than many on both sides make it out to be. I would guess most people agree that there is a line that can't be crossed in terms of who speaks on a college campus. While hosting a speaker is certainly not tacit endorsement of his or her message, it is also the private university's choice (since, you know, Citizens United suggests that even for-profit corporations are people endowed with free speech) who to be associated with. So if a speaker was calling for genocide, expressing openly racist views, etc....and I could be wrong here...but I'm guessing most would not want that speaker on Gonzaga's campus. Where that line exists is obviously quite subjective. And there are certainly some who feel that no matter what the message is they want it heard. It is my opinion that many such people may not have felt the pain of social ostracism, prejudice, or discrimination...but that's just my guess.

I happen to believe that the critique of safe space/snowflake/PC culture is significantly overblown, but I'll also admit that some on the left have are too quick to shut down when faced with differences in opinion. However, I also strongly believe that provocateurs have forced the hand on this issue. There are people on both sides who say outrageous things to get clicks, views, and perhaps most of all IN ORDER to be banned. It's great PR when you become a pariah to one side and a martyr to the other.

I'm sure this thread will be closed soon, but appreciate all sharing their opinions.

[LongIslandZagFan]

I miss the OCC. I actually do. It may have been 2 separate echo chambers, but I thought the discourse was actually, almost always, respectful...if not productive.

This issue is a lot more complex than many on both sides make it out to be. I would guess most people agree that there is a line that can't be crossed in terms of who speaks on a college campus. While hosting a speaker is certainly not tacit endorsement of his or her message, it is also the private university's choice (since, you know, Citizens United suggests that even for-profit corporations are people endowed with free speech) who to be associated with. So if a speaker was calling for genocide, expressing openly racist views, etc....and I could be wrong here...but I'm guessing most would not want that speaker on Gonzaga's campus. Where that line exists is obviously quite subjective. And there are certainly some who feel that no matter what the message is they want it heard. It is my opinion that many such people may not have felt the pain of social ostracism, prejudice, or discrimination...but that's just my guess.

I happen to believe that the critique of safe space/snowflake/PC culture is significantly overblown, but I'll also admit that some on the left have are too quick to shut down when faced with differences in opinion. However, I also strongly believe that provocateurs have forced the hand on this issue. There are people on both sides who say outrageous things to get clicks, views, and perhaps most of all IN ORDER to be banned. It's great PR when you become a pariah to one side and a martyr to the other.

I'm sure this thread will be closed soon, but appreciate all sharing their opinions.

Agree 100% of everything you said.

[LongIslandZagFan]

Feel like we're back in the OCC...

I don't miss it.