Friday, November 16, 2012

Picking Speakers


For John, BLUFDemocrats should distance themselves from Professor Peter Singer.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

So Fordham University has invited Princeton Professor Peter Singer, but doesn't want author Ann Coulter. The authorities accuse Ms Coulter of "hate speech", but favor Mr Chris Matthews.  Strange.

But, especially strange is inviting infanticide advocate Peter Singer.  One wonders why the Democrats don't distance themselves from this man and his teachings.  He makes Todd Akin appear very main line in his thinking.

Fordham is a private institution, so the First Amendment doesn't apply.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

14 comments:

kad barma said...

Any institution rejecting Ann Coulter on the basis that she's a proven idiot has my full support. Her self-described profession is to "stir the pot". (Her words). She adds nothing of value to any discussion. (She reminds me always of the Monty Python argument sketch:

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/be76d3ca8d/argument-clinic-from-monty-python-from-greatest-comedy-sketches

Singer does carry active academic credentials to go along with his extreme notion that a human fetus fails any test to be human until its mother prefers it to be so. There is a difference.

Disagreement with a reasoned argument is fair, and often the point with such lectures. Contradiction is just tiresome.

Renee said...

You need 'academic credentials' to speak? No. Lot's of individuals speak at Universities that do not have academic credentials.

It's your opinion she adds nothing of value, but you're entitled to your opinion. Just as the President of Fordham University, to associate to not associate with Ann Coulter.

Peter Singer is for brother/sister marriage as long as they don't procreate and bestiality. But he has academic credentials!

BTW I don't care very much for Ann Coulter, I don't follow her or read her work.

Renee said...

What Peter talks about in his lectures...

"Imagine a brother and sister, he said. They are on a summer holiday and decide that it would be interesting and fun if they tried making love. There’s no chance of offspring because she is using the pill and he a condom. It brings them closer, but they never do it again.

Is this wrong?

You could feel the frisson of deliciously wicked transgressiveness sweeping through the Great Hall. Oooooo, isn’t that naughty, or what? This is the ethical wizardry we came for!"


"Look, he explained, our instinctive revulsion at incest is merely an evolved response which protected human communities against inbreeding. But such intuitions are not authentically moral reaction because they lack a rational justification. They are evidence of our bondage to obsolete emotions. These conferred a survival advantage when we lived as hunter-gatherers, but not necessarily in the 21st Century."


------------

Mr. Lynne said...

She's not speaking not because she was censored, but because the group inviting her (the College Republicans) thought better of it. This appeal to the President about Singer is a non sequitur.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2012/11/fordham-repudiates-ann-coulter/

"I was thoroughly satisfied with this repudiation of Coulter by the president of the university. His letter made unequivocally clear that Fordham did not endorse her toxic contributions to the public discourse and that her presence would be accommodated only as an expression of Fordham’s admirably genuine commitment to academic freedom, civil debate, and (implicitly) the autonomy of student groups who hold unpopular opinions. I could accept her speaking at Fordham on these grounds."

The College Insurrection article misrepresents what happened. For instance: "Fordham then argues that it can be against Coulter coming to speak..." If by Fordham he means the President (who I assume you mean in citing 'the authorities') then his 'case' was opinion and not policy. Coulter isn't 'banned', just criticized.

The truth here is that the President made it known that he wasn't going to ban or censor anyone and would stand for Fordham's traditions of academic freedom, but also registered his disappointment in Coulter's invitation.

Are we seriously arguing that the President was somehow 'harming free speech' by criticizing Coulter?

Mr. Lynne said...

Worst in the article is probably this:

"If Fordham students truly lack the ability to listen to an invited speaker, separate rhetoric from reality, and make up their own minds, then Fordham has much graver problems than Ann Coulter coming to campus."

BS. Distortion. They still have "...the ability to listen to an invited speaker" including Coulter. They thought better of it.

I guess Mr. Shibley isn't actually interested in informing or being informed.

C R Krieger said...

Mt L, you don't think the Fordham leadership was sending a signal to the students?

Regards  —  Cliff

Mr. Lynne said...

He certainly was. You think he shouldn't? You think its censorship?

Mr. Lynne said...

More on this Mail article:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qbn1rCZz1ow&feature=plcp





On problems with the Mail:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cp-iB6jwjUc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PWDFzWt-Ag

Mr. Lynne said...

Heh. Wrong thread - that was meant for the Daily Mail thread.

kad barma said...

Just to be clear: I wouldn't give Singer the respect of an audience and I have no interest in his "ethics" which are patently offensive to me. Just observing that he has put effort into reasoning his positions, and it's far different than simple contradiction, which is Ms Coulter's tired and heard-it-before game. No, I do not believe in prerequisites to speak. But I do believe in respecting qualifications duly earned by other means than just saying whatever will piss off a certain demographic.

Renee said...

When you sign up to a private school, you sign up also for a particular view point of the world.

When I was younger I applied and sought out some pretty secular progressive schools in the New England area. I wanted to be around people who had the same world view.

(OK I was a closeted Catholic, took awhile to admit it and practice it)

Dear College Republicans of Fordham University what part of Jesuit do you not understand?

Just saying...



Mr. LYnne said...

Globally, this is the 332nd consecutive month with an above-average temperature.


http://grist.org/news/if-youre-27-or-younger-youve-never-experienced-a-colder-than-average-month/#.UKamjTnXSLo.twitter


"If you were born in or after April 1985, if you are right now 27 years old or younger, you have never lived through a month that was colder than average. That’s beyond astonishing."

Mr. Lynne said...

Ugh... did it again - that was meant for the GW thread.

Renee said...

Poor Fordham, remind you it is a Catholic School, so when you have professors demanding that the school funds things contrary to Catholic teaching...

"For example, we understand that student groups may not use their budgets for the productions of the Vagina Monologues mounted by Fordham undergraduates each year to raise funds to combat violence against women. Along these same lines, Fordham’s anti-abortion club receives funding while pro-choice advocacy is censored."


I've never seen the Vagina Monologues, but I pretty much understand the problems of domestic violence against women.

Gasp an anti-abortion group (aka pro-life) gets funding, but students need to go off campus to get their free condoms. Horrible violations of Human Rights on campus!

I think some professors need to be let go... clean house if possible. There are plenty of professors inline with Catholic teaching willing to take their place.