He was invited to speak by a presumably approved student group of the University. They gave him a space, as they would presumably have done for any other approved student group. I don't think it requires respect for the speaker to not trample all over another group's University provided rights (to invite people and hear them speak in Uni…
He was invited to speak by a presumably approved student group of the University. They gave him a space, as they would presumably have done for any other approved student group. I don't think it requires respect for the speaker to not trample all over another group's University provided rights (to invite people and hear them speak in University facilities).
If you don't like the speaker, protest outside. If you don't like the group for their decisions, protest them. If you don't like the University for its decisions, protest them.
Ultimately I don't think the power to shut down speech should rest with any handful of people who can shout loud and be disruptive. That power will quickly be abused (at least it would if the yellers weren't busy scoring own goals in the court of public opinion).
People want results right now, and the yellers tell themselves they got what they wanted, by stopping the speech, but hearts and minds take longer. I am reminded of the Edmund Pettus bridge which I visited a few years ago. Now it isn't the same in all kinds of ways, but those who wanted to stop the other side succeeded that day. They did not succeed in the long run.
He was invited to speak by a presumably approved student group of the University. They gave him a space, as they would presumably have done for any other approved student group. I don't think it requires respect for the speaker to not trample all over another group's University provided rights (to invite people and hear them speak in University facilities).
If you don't like the speaker, protest outside. If you don't like the group for their decisions, protest them. If you don't like the University for its decisions, protest them.
Ultimately I don't think the power to shut down speech should rest with any handful of people who can shout loud and be disruptive. That power will quickly be abused (at least it would if the yellers weren't busy scoring own goals in the court of public opinion).
People want results right now, and the yellers tell themselves they got what they wanted, by stopping the speech, but hearts and minds take longer. I am reminded of the Edmund Pettus bridge which I visited a few years ago. Now it isn't the same in all kinds of ways, but those who wanted to stop the other side succeeded that day. They did not succeed in the long run.