Bravo. A good piece. There should always be more speech rather than less. The key should be balance. And not the type of idiot scheme used to prevent speakers at Saint Louis University. A broad cross section of speakers representing differing philosophies and perspectives made available to the campus community throughout the academic year is the only way to go. Including, I might add, everyone from Ward Churchill to David Horowitz.

I agree, Prof. Bauerlein, and I continue to be shocked by how tactically inept university administrators and sometimes angry faculty are in handling these kinds of situations. For one, it's the correct thing to do to let a variety of viewpoints, however extreme, be heard, particularly on a university campus, whose primary function is to educate and to allow for the exchange and evaluation of ideas. There couldn't be a more conducive environment, nor an environment with more resources and support, for generating constructive debate and discussion from difference and from controversy. And for two, the best way to give ammunition to a jackass or a lunatic is to make a martyr out of them. Particularly for Horowitz, whose position is almost always anti-university on the grounds that they're full of crazy, intolerant lefties, admins and faculty have to know that every time they ban Horowitz, Horowitz wins a battle without even having to show up. The way people handle these situations sometimes is a bad combination of dogmatic and stupid.

In my view, the only acceptable reason to bar speakers would be a question of physical safety. A school that turns speakers away for other reasons is saying: "We are a walled intellectual garden." But it's reasonable to pair speakers so differing points of view get presented. The instance above is clearly a different message: "You can keep trying, but there's no way we'll let you speak here.

well done piece. I wish campus administrators would be more open to all viewpoints. Oddly enough, St Louis U argued a few years ago that it was a secular institution in order to qualify for some public financing of its new Chaifetz Arena, home to its revitalized basketball program. A week or two ago, that arena, built on university property and in part with public subsidy, hosted (drum roll, please) Glenn Beck. Gives a whole new meaning to the word "Jesuitical."

I think it's not the threats -- it's the *donors* (and potential donors) that get administrators scared of offending anyone.

Here is the AAUP's official stance on the issue of outside speakers on campus.

http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/comm/rep/A/outside.htm

Why do we have a state, if not to defend our freedoms? If there is a threat of physical violence to a speaker, or an attempt to disrupt a public meeting, here is where our taxes should be put to work paying police overtime. Hopefully, heavy fines on the disruptors can make the operation break even.

For once, something thoughtfully and effectively presented by Mark Bauerlein. I am both surprised and impressed.

Darkroomjames
I am amazed at a university that doesn't believe in the Founding Fathers' premise of the Constitution, vis a vis the First Amendment. It is patently unAmerican not to believe in free speech, and proof is right there in the Constitution (but not in the Bible). Holding one's hands to one's ears and making childish sounds to prevent hearing is this university's idea of posterity? Of a marketplace of ideas? Don't tase me, brother takes on a whole new dimension in this now-covert setting, where sheep may safely graze...

Great article. Once upon a time, the university or, for that matter, college was a place where one could for a few years be exposed to all sorts of points of view, no matter how "irrelevant" or "radical" or "out of touch." (Does anyone think private industry gives a damn about Piers Ploughman, for instance?) My memories of the sixties are a little distant, mind you, but I don't recall anyone worrying overmuch about offending anyone's hypersensitive feelings when e.g. women's rights or the war in Vietnam or racial equality or whatever was on the agenda.

Today, while progress has certainly been made in accommodating minorities, particularly people with disabilities, this has come at a price, and the price has not always been commensurate with the benefit, or even directly related to it at all. We're so "dare I eat a peach" for fear somebody somewhere is going to raise a ruckus that "free speech" has become a hollow mockery.

Free speech does not mean someone has the right to say whatever I agree with. It definitely means someone has the right to say something that really pisses me off, for whatever reason, good or bad. The limits to free speech are fairly clear: not how much I object to the views expressed, but whether in fact the speech crosses over to e.g. incitement to violence.

The gutless, spineless, and otherwise anatomically deficient wimpiness ends up giving the appearance at least of mindlessness. Not a good image for a university to project.

Mark, you have written another fine piece of logic and political literature. I wonder if willynilly has really read any more than perhaps two of your articles and/or books. While I may not agree with everything you write, I always give it a through analysis and distinguish why and why not. I thought that was what was taught in the Academy back in the Sixties; it makes me wonder why we have forsaken it.

Most of the responses to this misinformed article don't take into consideration that Saint Louis University is a private Jesuit University. It is not under the control of the Catholic Church. It has its own Board of Trustees. The cancellation of Horowitz may not have been because of message but because of cost and conditions. Did anyone check? When a message of hate conflicts with a University's Mission, the mission should win out. Horowitz was offered the chance for an intellectual debate but was not interested. He only wanted to use the occasion to spout his misguided message. Bauerlein's article was not worthy of this publication. I know Scott Smith as a caring, student advocate and student affairs professional. The shots he received from this article are not warranted.