RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

According to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, this trend is growing. In the 21 years leading up to 2009, there were 21 incidents of an invited guest not speaking because of protests. Yet, in the past five-and-a-half years, there have been 39 cancellations.

The Closing of the Liberal Mind

Or is it that the speakers receiving the protest have gotten more sensitive over the years and more likely to withdraw?

The Drama Queenization of the Conservative Speaker

I would imagine the uptick has to do with social media, Facebook in particular, making it easier to organize opposition. People will sign petitions online to protect their delicate little ears from ever hearing from someone they might disagree with more readily than attending an actual real life protest, but it still attracts coverage and controversy. The controversial coverage/specter of disruptions at the event itself leads schools or the speaker herself to change their mind and cancel the invitation/back out.

Guys, why don't you care about something really meaningful, like the fact that white upper middle class dudes in college are told to "check their privledge"?

*actively tries to suppress minorities and poor people*

jerseyhoya wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

According to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, this trend is growing. In the 21 years leading up to 2009, there were 21 incidents of an invited guest not speaking because of protests. Yet, in the past five-and-a-half years, there have been 39 cancellations.

The Closing of the Liberal Mind

Or is it that the speakers receiving the protest have gotten more sensitive over the years and more likely to withdraw?

The Drama Queenization of the Conservative Speaker

I would imagine the uptick has to do with social media, Facebook in particular, making it easier to organize opposition. People will sign petitions online to protect their delicate little ears from ever hearing from someone they might disagree with more readily than attending an actual real life protest, but it still attracts coverage and controversy. The controversial coverage/specter of disruptions at the event itself leads schools or the speaker herself to change their mind and cancel the invitation/back out.

Meh, online petitions predate 2009. I graduated from college in 2001 and they were a thing for college students even then. Passed around via e-mail, AOLIM, ICQ, and the like.

SK790 wrote:Guys, why don't you care about something really meaningful, like the fact that white upper middle class dudes in college are told to "check their privledge"?

I think you've got this just about backwards. It was a Very Big Deal for the left that some Princeton freshman wrote a column in a campus paper that went viral much the same as it is a Very Big Deal for the right that a number of commencement speakers have been deemed unacceptable by campus leftists.

Time Magazine picked it up. It wouldn't have been a big deal otherwise. But they did, so it was

It was such not a big deal for the right that they twisted logic to defend the guys dumb opinions.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

According to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, this trend is growing. In the 21 years leading up to 2009, there were 21 incidents of an invited guest not speaking because of protests. Yet, in the past five-and-a-half years, there have been 39 cancellations.

The Closing of the Liberal Mind

Or is it that the speakers receiving the protest have gotten more sensitive over the years and more likely to withdraw?

The Drama Queenization of the Conservative Speaker

I would imagine the uptick has to do with social media, Facebook in particular, making it easier to organize opposition. People will sign petitions online to protect their delicate little ears from ever hearing from someone they might disagree with more readily than attending an actual real life protest, but it still attracts coverage and controversy. The controversial coverage/specter of disruptions at the event itself leads schools or the speaker herself to change their mind and cancel the invitation/back out.

Meh, online petitions predate 2009. I graduated from college in 2001 and they were a thing for college students even then. Passed around via e-mail, AOLIM, ICQ, and the like.

I think Facebook has become a lot more political over the past few years with the increase in websites making sure their content can be shared on Facebook, campaigns and other political minded organziations focusing on creating content that is Facebook friendly, etc. I'd say the 2008 election was a big fork in the road for all this. Doesn't seem that long ago when Facebook was exclusively for posting pictures and stalking potential dates and posting statuses like John is drinking all of the Busch Light at the Tombs.

To see the College Republicans content, I needed to be on their email list. Now you just need a friend share a petition on his news feed and everyone sees it. It increases the eyeballs seeing the message dramatically, and you're only one or two clicks away from adding your name to the outrage. Now there's a movement! In turn it makes its way into the media more readily, and presto, controversy.

I like my hypothesis for the uptick in cancellations.

SK790 wrote:It was such not a big deal for the right that they twisted logic to defend the guys dumb opinions.

Or the left defending the dumb opinions of the people chasing away speakers

SK790 wrote:if anything, this is how thing should happen much more often.

A really dumb and uniformed opinion:

By selecting Ms. Lagarde as the commencement speaker we are supporting the International Monetary Fund and thus going directly against Smith’s values to stand in unity with equality for all women, regardless of race, ethnicity or class. Although we do not wish to disregard all of Ms. Lagarde’s accomplishments as a strong female leader in the world, we also do not want to be represented by someone whose work directly contributes to many of the systems that we are taught to fight against. By having her speak at our commencement, we would be publicly supporting and acknowledging her, and thus the IMF.

Another really dumb liberal was critical of the IMF, stating:

We need the World Bank, the IMF, all the big foundations, and all the governments to admit that, for 30 years, we all blew it, including me when I was president. We were wrong to believe that food was like some other product in international trade, and we all have to go back to a more responsible and sustainable form of agriculture.

jerseyhoya wrote:

strapped to the blowholes of a pair of dolphins

Someone puhleeeeeze change their profile location to this.

SK790 wrote:A really dumb and uniformed opinion:

By selecting Ms. Lagarde as the commencement speaker we are supporting the International Monetary Fund and thus going directly against Smith’s values to stand in unity with equality for all women, regardless of race, ethnicity or class. Although we do not wish to disregard all of Ms. Lagarde’s accomplishments as a strong female leader in the world, we also do not want to be represented by someone whose work directly contributes to many of the systems that we are taught to fight against. By having her speak at our commencement, we would be publicly supporting and acknowledging her, and thus the IMF.

I think it's pretty comprehensively stupid for a student at one of the leading all women institutions of higher learning in the US not to want to have arguably the second most powerful woman in the world as the school's commencement speaker even if you are not a fan of what the IMF does. Listening to someone you disagree with doesn't mean you're supporting the person. And acknowledging her and the IMF seems pretty OK as they are things that exist.

I wanna talk about Voteman. Because that is just the kind of thing I think would make political ads more appealing. I was talking with someone JH knows and wondered if political campaigns (which have tons of money to spend on these kinds of things) actually tried to get creative (instead of the same old voice over crap) would people hate the ads less and maybe even engage in politics more?

Or is voteman a satire? (Because the cinnamon thing.)

But if we must talk about commencement speakers, no one is going to be happy until Dave Barry does every commencement speech.

jerseyhoya wrote:

SK790 wrote:A really dumb and uniformed opinion:

By selecting Ms. Lagarde as the commencement speaker we are supporting the International Monetary Fund and thus going directly against Smith’s values to stand in unity with equality for all women, regardless of race, ethnicity or class. Although we do not wish to disregard all of Ms. Lagarde’s accomplishments as a strong female leader in the world, we also do not want to be represented by someone whose work directly contributes to many of the systems that we are taught to fight against. By having her speak at our commencement, we would be publicly supporting and acknowledging her, and thus the IMF.

I think it's pretty comprehensively stupid for a student at one of the leading all women institutions of higher learning in the US not to want to have arguably the second most powerful woman in the world as the school's commencement speaker even if you are not a fan of what the IMF does. Listening to someone you disagree with doesn't mean you're supporting the person. And acknowledging her and the IMF seems pretty OK as they are things that exist.

It seems you're confusing remarks about the person, regarding whom there seems no significant objection, and the institution, about which the stronger reservations are expressed.

If students collectively decide they don't want to hear a person that they are morally opposed to speak, and be the most notable speaker one of the bigger days of their lives there's nothing wrong with that.

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

SK790 wrote:A really dumb and uniformed opinion:

By selecting Ms. Lagarde as the commencement speaker we are supporting the International Monetary Fund and thus going directly against Smith’s values to stand in unity with equality for all women, regardless of race, ethnicity or class. Although we do not wish to disregard all of Ms. Lagarde’s accomplishments as a strong female leader in the world, we also do not want to be represented by someone whose work directly contributes to many of the systems that we are taught to fight against. By having her speak at our commencement, we would be publicly supporting and acknowledging her, and thus the IMF.

I think it's pretty comprehensively stupid for a student at one of the leading all women institutions of higher learning in the US not to want to have arguably the second most powerful woman in the world as the school's commencement speaker even if you are not a fan of what the IMF does. Listening to someone you disagree with doesn't mean you're supporting the person. And acknowledging her and the IMF seems pretty OK as they are things that exist.

It seems you're confusing remarks about the person, regarding whom there seems no significant objection, and the institution, about which the stronger reservations are expressed.

yes. isn't smith a crazy leftist school anyway? i'm sure a really progressive college might not want to be associated with an organization that has been historically criticized by progressives.

Everything JH is saying makes sense, but it's not a liberal/conservative issue. The fact is there aren't many colleges with conservative student bodies large enough to scare away a liberal commencement speaker, at least at colleges that would even have a liberal commencement speaker in the first place. The current Republican platform is generally about as appetizing as a rusty stick up the anus for college students. Is there any doubt that a conservative student body would try to shoo away Al Gore with his anti-business propaganda? That being said, I do not want my university paying 30,000 dollars for anyone, let alone Connie Rice. De-capitalize the commencement game!

youseff, what is collectively decided about 20 people from swarthmore telling the Berkeley chancellor to stay away? It's beyond moronic to chase away a woman like Christine Lagarde because she works for the IMF.

I mean if I squint, I can sort of, SORT OF see what monkeyboy is saying with Condi Rice because of wars and blood. But the IMF? Does Christine Lagarde have that much blood on her hands that you can't at least hear her thoughts on women and leaning in to the work force and all that happy crap?

You know who loses here? All the students that don't give a crap about any of this and just want to have a nice graduation day and maybe had a commencement speaker they've heard of (though not that important and obviously doesn't apply to swarthmore's pick).

Youseff wrote:If students collectively decide they don't want to hear a person that they are morally opposed to speak, and be the most notable speaker one of the bigger days of their lives there's nothing wrong with that.

But they're not collectively deciding they don't want someone to speak. A small, loud segment of the student body is voicing disapproval, suggesting the speaker needs to be changed because she will disrupt the day (because they, themselves, will disrupt the day).

jerseyhoya wrote:

Youseff wrote:If students collectively decide they don't want to hear a person that they are morally opposed to speak, and be the most notable speaker one of the bigger days of their lives there's nothing wrong with that.

But they're not collectively deciding they don't want someone to speak. A small, loud segment of the student body is voicing disapproval, suggesting the speaker needs to be changed because she will disrupt the day (because they, themselves, will disrupt the day).

The petition was like a quarter of the student body, no?