Eagle Forum Legislative Alerts

Thursday, June 25, 2015

Research As Hate Speech?

Another conservative event has kicked off a college campus ruckus. The Anscombe Society at the Stanford University medical school is a student group focused on “sexual integrity.” The members are non-religious and non-political, but they advocate traditional morality and oppose gay marriage. The society had planned to host a conference called “Facing History” to study the history and legacy of the sexual revolution. A student LGBT group took offense and circulated a petition, demanding that college administrators cancel the event. They claimed the speakers—scholars and medical doctors who would be discussing academic research—would really be delivering “hate speech,” and they said it wasn’t fair that all the speakers represented conservative viewpoints. The students threatened to protest and bring in outside groups.

The conference happened to be scheduled on a day called Admit Day, when prospective medical students would be visiting the campus. The threat of a ruined Admit Day intimidated the administration, and they told the Anscombe Society that they could not use a campus building for their event and would have to move it off campus.

The depressing part of this story is that there’s nothing unusual about this. It’s the typical intolerance of anything leftist college students don’t like. Colleges today are not places for open exchange of ideas. They’re places where liberals erupt in hysterics over the existence of a different point of view. Notice that we never see conservative student groups behaving this way—when was the last time you heard about College Republicans protesting a speaker, or complaining that there weren’t enough conservatives at a conference? I’d like to congratulate the Stanford Anscombe Society for its courage in making a conservative viewpoint heard despite such a hostile atmosphere.

Listen to the radio commentary here:

1 comment:

Ken Lockridge said...

In a very different context, I encountered something similar when I had a capstone class at Excelsior and the topic turned to Darwin. I chose to post about the moral implications of Darwin, and quoted from Mein Kampf where Hitler tries to make a categorical imperative out of artificial selection by point out how natural selection had spent so many millions of years and so great an effort to get where we are now. How dare anyone to object to the effort to make the process more efficient and bring it to its goal (teleological end). I quoted it, and they took the post down, presumably because of its Nazi content, which I was against. My point had been that this is the inevitable conclusion of Darwinist ethics.

Post a Comment

Keep comments short. Long comments will be deleted.