By Diogenes (articles ) | October 18, 2003 2:29 PM
Students for Academic Freedom recount a fairly typical case of campus censorship, this time at a Jesuit university:
Gonzaga University (Spokane, WA) administration officials censored flyers advertising a Young America's Foundation organized lecture because the word "hate" was used on the flyer. The flyer in question featured the topic of guest speaker Dan Flynn's speech, "Why the Left Hates America," which is also the title of his book. The administration first approved the flyer then rescinded the approval after some professors and students complained of the use of the word "hate."
In a conversation with Gonzaga's Director of Student Activities, student organizer Paul Schafer was told that the word "hate" is a strong word and that the students shouldn't hold an event at which a speaker hates someone. The director also told Schafer that many students and faculty members tore down his group's flyers to bring them to the office to make complaints. The director has so far refused to give Schafer the names of the people who tore down the flyers, which is a violation of Gonzaga's posting policy. He then compared the speech title "Why the Left Hates America" to an imaginary Caucasian club talking about how it hates black people.
Clearly the DSA in question is not the brightest crayon in the box, failing as he does to see that hatred is merely the topic of the proposed discussion, and that Flynn and the group that sponsors him deplore the hatred in question anyway. His analogy to "an imaginary Caucasian club talking about how it hates black people" is astonishingly stupid, even for a diversity hack. That said, viewing the incident in the terms of academic freedom has problems of its own. The post continues:
Further erosions of students' free speech occurred when the trustees of Gonzaga University passed new rules on who students can sponsor as a guest speaker on campus. Now the administration must give approval of the topics that speakers will present on campus. According to the new guidelines, university officials may forbid a guest speaker or event if "the speech or event would not constitute a legitimate educational experience or otherwise contribute to the University's mission," leaving the student's expression of thought and diversity of ideas to university bureaucrats.
But shouldn't a university, and a Catholic university above all, have the right to define its mission as narrowly as it wishes, and to reject speakers that it deems harmful to that mission? It's true of course that, in the present and for the foreseeable future, such "mission-focused" censorship will operate, even at most Catholic universities, as a means of silencing or intimidating dissenters from the Leftist orthodoxy. And it's true that such censorship will almost always operate in bad faith, as the censors will rarely make their real convictions (and criteria) public. But for a university that was Catholic in substance and not just in name -- which we must admit is at least a theoretical possibility -- wouldn't the Gonzaga guidelines be an entirely honorable exercise in self-governance?
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:
Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach five million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!
Progress toward our March expenses ($27,157 to go):
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: -
Oct. 19, 2003 3:00 PM ET USA
What is interesting is that the Left doesn't hestitate to do what the orthodox should have been doing all along--guarding the universities against dissenters. Unfortunately, when the orthodox were in control, the bureaucrats didn't want to be the bad guy. So ,they frequently caved in to the Left until the Left took control. Now those bureaucrats have no qualms about playing the heavy. Curious. Well unless you take into account original sin and Satan's cunning.
Posted by: John J Plick -
Oct. 19, 2003 8:47 AM ET USA
I am dismayed at times why situations like this are so mysterious to people. It would seem rather obvious to me that problems like this rest on the concept ot what "freedom" means. Is "freedom" a wrecking ball to be used to knock down any restriction, any inhibition whatsoever? Mature Catholics are painfully aware of their falleness. They realize that authority and restrictions, although not always perfect are essential to life. Sin is NOT freedom, it is bondage, ultimately death.
Posted by: Pseudodionysius -
Oct. 19, 2003 12:15 AM ET USA
"Hatred of error should never be confused with narrowness of Spirit" Charles Journet. I guess Journet would have been barred as well. Not to mention Christ's 'brood of vipers' speech to the Pharisees. Perhaps Gonzaga can implement the 10 Suggestions instead of the 10 Commandments.