They Don't Want Condi?

I understand the debates that grip college campuses when controversial speakers are invited.  If a speaker has a history of hostility to racial groups, or religious ones; or a criminal history; or views antithetical to the college's stated purpose (Rosie O'Donnell speaking at Liberty University, say).  But I cannot understand why anyone would oppose the presence of the Secretary of State of the United States.  Is BC just another college full of clueless, lefty professors?

That was rhetorical.

Comments

[matt]

You didn't notice that US foreign policy has been, I don't know, a little bit controversial in recent years? Saying she should be invited and tolerated because of her position of authority is a facile argument, though the political science professor quoted in the article does the same thing (perhaps unsurprisingly).

[carpundit]

It's not facile at all; it's the core argument. This is not some random espouser of doctrine with whom you may disagree. It is the Secretary of State of the United States, appointed by the elected President, confirmed by the elected Senate, and duly serving in that office. That matters.

Sure, it could be overcome if she were, say, a racist demagogue or a mass-murderer, or a war criminal. In that case, the presumption of respect would be overcome by a showing of unworthiness. But merely disagreeing with the foreign policy of the government isn't sufficient.

The Campus Left continues to want to prevent students' being exposed to ideas it doesn't like.

[matt]

As for your comment that she is a worthy invitee because of her rank, it is a facile argument because it appeals to her authority, rather than her actions and character. The political world is not a strict meritocracy; people with low intelligence and few abilities can still attain positions of high status. I personally would want to see Condi speak because I haven't made up my mind about her, but I would decline the opportunity to see Bush speak, for example.

The next part of your argument is that if they had a major disagreement, rejecting Condi would be okay, but because their disagreement is minor (a "mere" disagreement), it is not okay. Yet presumably they think their disagreement with her is in fact a major one, if they interpret her actions or viewpoints to be widely out of line with the values of their school. In addition, BC was going to bestow an honorary degree upon Condi (which suggests approval, not just giving her the opportunity to speak), and if you read the article that was the impetus for the petition against Condi. ''I have no objection to her coming here to speak -- I am in favor of free speech -- but I don't believe we should be honoring her with an honorary degree," Hollenbach said.

[carpundit]

A quick, winning argument is not necessarily facile. A graduation speaker is often (if not usually) chosen by his position, not his oratory. To reject a chosen speaker of high office should require something more than mere disagreement with his policy choices, unless those choices are beyond the pale.

Of course, elected officials can have weak intellects (look no further than our current President). But even that is not a reason to rescind an invitation.

An individual choice not to attend is different from a college's choice not to invite. I would not quibble with the choice of a group of professors to skip the speech in protest of our government's policies. Hell, I'd skip George Bush too. He's an awful speaker.

But it discredits the professors to argue that a high public official should not speak because they disagree with her policies. Even if the disagreement is major (they really dislike her policies). Better they should attend and hold signs up in the back.

"You can't speak here" really ought to be reserved for exceptional situations.