The University of Chicago recently made it clear to its crop of incoming students that academic freedom and inquiry remain pillars at the institution, and that the university does not support "so-called" trigger warnings or offer safe spaces that allow students "to retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own. Here is how the university welcomed its incoming class of 2020:
Welcome and congratulations on your acceptance to the college at the University of Chicago. Earning a place in our community of scholars is no small achievement and we are delighted that you selected Chicago to continue your intellectual journey.
Once here you will discover that one of the University of Chicago’s defining characteristics is our commitment to freedom of inquiry and expression. … Members of our community are encouraged to speak, write, listen, challenge, and learn, without fear of censorship. Civility and mutual respect are vital to all of us, and freedom of expression does not mean the freedom to harass or threaten others. You will find that we expect members of our community to be engaged in rigorous debate, discussion, and even disagreement. At times this may challenge you and even cause discomfort.
And then, the coup de grace:
Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so called ‘trigger warnings,’ we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual ‘safe spaces’ where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.All I would say is that those who drafted this letter had better brace themselves for some ire from the jackboots.
You know that's coming.
Get that part about not cancelling invited speakers? I seem to recall you were all for ND cancelling a traditional speech by a new sitting president 7 short years ago. I know, I know, that's different. Keep us posted on the ire.
ReplyDeleteThe MEC is an enthusiast of fetal murder. Hardly appropriate for a Catholic university.
ReplyDeleteSee, there you go again. And you're not even Catholic.
ReplyDeleteWell, we could revisit the backroom and the dark alley abortionists, the coat hangers, you know. Barack Obama was 12 years old when Roe v Wade was decided back in '73.
ReplyDeleteDon't act like you don't know about this:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.weeklystandard.com/video-obama-says-hes-pro-choice-on-third-trimester-abortions/article/650524
During a 2003 press conference, Barack Obama indicated that he thought abortion should be legal in all situations, even late in pregnancy:
OBAMA: “I am pro-choice.”
REPORTER: “In all situations including the late term thing?”
OBAMA: “I am pro-choice. I believe that women make responsible choices and they know better than anybody the tragedy of a difficult pregnancy and I don’t think that it’s the government’s role to meddle in that choice.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/290707/when-obama-voted-infanticide-andrew-c-mccarthy
There wasn’t any question about what was happening. The abortions were going wrong. The babies weren’t cooperating. They wouldn’t die as planned. Or, as Illinois state senator Barack Obama so touchingly put it, there was “movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead.” No, Senator. They wouldn’t go along with the program. They wouldn’t just come out limp and dead. They were coming out alive. Born alive. Babies. Vulnerable human beings Obama, in his detached pomposity, might otherwise include among “the least of my brothers.” But of course, an abortion extremist can’t very well be invoking Saint Matthew, can he? So, for Obama, the shunning of these least of our brothers and sisters — millions of them — is somehow not among America’s greatest moral failings. No. In Obama’s hardball, hard-Left world, these least become “that fetus, or child — however you want to describe it.” Most of us, of course, opt for “child,” particularly when the “it” is born and living and breathing and in need of our help. Particularly when the “it” is clinging not to guns or religion but to life. But not Barack Obama. As an Illinois state senator, he voted to permit infanticide. And now, running for president, he banks on media adulation to insulate him from his past. The record, however, doesn’t lie. Infanticide is a bracing word. But in this context, it’s the only word that fits. Obama heard the testimony of a nurse, Jill Stanek. She recounted how she’d spent 45 minutes holding a living baby left to die. The child had lacked the good grace to expire as planned in an induced-labor abortion — one in which an abortionist artificially induces labor with the expectation that the underdeveloped “fetus, or child — however you want to describe it” will not survive the delivery. Stanek encountered another nurse carrying the child to a “soiled utility room” where it would be left to die. It wasn’t that unusual. The induced-labor method was used for late-term abortions. Many of the babies were strong enough to survive the delivery. At least for a time. So something had to be done with them. They couldn’t be left out in the open, struggling in the presence of fellow human beings. After all, those fellow human beings — health-care providers— would then be forced to confront the inconvenient question of why they were standing idly by. That would hold a mirror up to the whole grisly business. Better the utility room. Alone, out of sight and out of mind. Next case.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/290707/when-obama-voted-infanticide-andrew-c-mccarthy
Banning him or anyone else as a speaker inhibits debate in addition to infringing upon intellectual freedom.
ReplyDeleteVery slippery slope, bloggie. It would take an idiot to even begin to go there I'm an ND commencement speech. Since where we draw the line is always in dispute there should be no lines
ReplyDelete