PRIDE: Progressives Rejecting Intellectual Diversity Explode

If you are reading my column, you are familiar with the claim that campus administrators often seek to deprive young conservatives of the ability to defend their beliefs in the marketplace of ideas. But you may not have heard the claim that campus administrators often deprive young leftists of the ability to defend their beliefs in the marketplace of ideas. The latter contention is the subject of the present column. It begins with a salient example from my own campus, UNC-Wilmington.

Here on my campus, a bold Christian organization called Ratio Christi often seeks to open up the marketplace of ideas in an environment sorely lacking in intellectual diversity. They seek to do this in at least two important ways:

-First, when people who have different beliefs bring in speakers and sponsor programs, they go and ask questions in a respectful manner. I’ve never heard a single report that they have been disrespectful in any way when they attend the events of their opponents.

- Second, when they bring in their own speakers and sponsor their own programs, they invite the opposition so people can ask questions in a respectful manner.

Recently, Ratio Christi decided to invite four “opposition” groups to my forthcoming lecture on abortion on February 26^th. The groups they chose were the College Democrats, People Recognizing Individual Differences Exist (PRIDE), National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), and the Women’s Studies Student Association (WSSA).

Predictably, none of the organizations accepted the invitation to attend. Their responses speak volumes about the pathetic state of discourse on our college campuses. The first response is from the College Democrats:

Our party’s views do not align with the views of the speaker. Therefore, we as an organization will not be attending.

This is unfortunate because campus conservatives have taken a different approach. For example, several recent university events have endorsed the pro-choice view – even to the point of celebrating late-term abortion. Those events were attended by College Republicans, Pro-Life Libertarians, and, as mentioned previously, members of Ratio Christi.

As disappointing as the Democrats answer was – it paled in comparison with the joint response offered by PRIDE, NARAL, and the WSSA. I am reprinting portions below - followed by my usual incite-full commentary:

We have no desire to hear from Mike Adams who has routinely mocked us and engaged in hostile and belittling behavior towards our organizations and beliefs.

This is actually a half-truth. I have not engaged in any hostile and belittling behavior towards PRIDE, NARAL, and the WSSA. However, it is true that I have routinely mocked gay pride, pro-abortion, and feminist groups – not just at UNC-Wilmington but also throughout the UNC system. The reason for that is simple: They deserved it.

For example, UNC feminist and women’s studies groups have routinely invited mockery by hosting masturbation workshops, orgasm awareness weeks, and bondage and S&M training seminars. They have set up vibrator museums and even walked across campus dressed as giant sex organs. I plead guilty to the charge of giving in to the temptation to mock their public idiocy. That is why we invited them to a serious event dealing with a serious issue. We think they can do better than to act like over-sexed frat boys.

We have no desire to attend any event sponsored by your organization and its narrow beliefs steeped in religious bigotry and intolerance.

This really requires no further explanation. Just a brief translation: We are too open-minded to be open to your point of view; we are morally superior to you because we are not religious; and we are too tolerant to tolerate your intolerance.

Each of the leaders of PRIDE, NARAL and WSSA ask that you no longer contact us directly. As a student organization, your events are on the CAIC calendar, part of Hawk e-News, and disseminated in a variety of other ways, which is sufficient for us to be aware of them. We do not need, nor want, these invitations. If you continue to attempt to contact any of us, we will take further action.

That alone was worth the price of admission, wasn’t it? With straight faces (or perhaps gay faces) these more-tolerant-than-thou leftists actually threatened to take action against a group merely for inviting them to a speech and Q&A. This brings me to the original reason for writing this column: to show how campus administrators often deprive younger leftists of the ability to defend their beliefs in the marketplace of ideas.

Put simply, these kids were not born with the anti-Christian gene. Nor were they born with a narrow-minded gene or an intolerant-of-other-ideas gene. They were taught to be intolerant, narrow-minded, anti-Christian bigots by the UNC administration. They have been told since the very first day of campus orientation that they have a right to be comfortable at all times. They have been told they have a right to be shielded from opposing views. They have been handed a sword in the form of a campus speech code, which they believe allows them to attack those who would dare to invite debate.

The university experience is not supposed to tell students what to believe. It is supposed to teach students how to defend their beliefs. This cannot be done as long as students stay hidden in the protective womb of the campus diversity center and the designated safe zone. At some point, they need to become intellectually viable.

The State Department catches up with Pat Buchanan, declaring solemnly that “We can’t defeat ISIS by killing them all”.

But rather than throwing up our hands, why don’t we finally Move On from the old Ugly American thing, learn something about their culture, and daft the vast Orwellian machinery of opinion shaping that so dominates our own thought for this noble purpose.

We need to do whatever it takes to counter Islamist propaganda. It will require understanding how they think. This will have to be the province of experts.

First order of business today...after breakfast...read this article to my boys and discuss. Then Mass and ashes.

It is sad that conversation, even hostile argument, is over. All that remains then is might and blood. Must we try harder or is it just that they accept their argument is completely untennable, hence avoid the exposure to their supporters? Nevertheless, when folks fear talking with us, we need to find another way to get them to do so. Mockery might pull some out, but perhaps the leaders of both sides ought be “skipped” for seemingly less adept unknowns, average Joes, to discuss the issues in smaller groups, on a person to person level, where respect can be seen in the eyes and MAINTAINED there, as Chesterton might do, so win orlose, respect for the individual lasts outside the conversation, making continued consideration of the counterpoints possible and comfortable. It must cease being a prize fight and become a genuine conversation of love the other, even in the face of covering or deflecting insult.

Stop inviting them, they admitted the campus media works to reach everyone. Invite everyone else but both sides of the argument, toning down the risk for the reward of the Truth.

I would argue that the left has never been tolerant of other views. They have never wanted people to hear other opinions, and that probably does reflect the fact that they are perfectly aware that most leftist views do not withstand scrutiny. But until Rush started broadcasting and reaching a wide audience, real opposition voices simply did not have an outlet within the major media. Thus, the leftists were content to give lip service to free speech, since they knew that the message that people heard constantly was that of the left.

Once Rush started his nationwide show, and other conservatives started popping up on the airways, and the internet gave non-liberal voices a way to be heard, the liberals started feeling threatened. They can no longer afford the pretense of being pro-free speech, since they actually have competition. Since their ideas are not intellectually defensible, they must depend on being the only voice heard in order to recruit young leftists. So they do everything they can to prevent other opinions from being heard.

Maybe a better idea is to stop thinking of university campuses as ‘cutting edge’ places where great ideas are exchanged, and start realizing that even the highest rated of them often are overpriced extensions of high school - except high school is a lot cheaper and often more demanding.

If you don’t look upon your local high school student body as a source of enlightenment and great wisdom about the issues of the world, why would you think it would be much different at a university - with students only a few years older, away from home for the first time, with more likelihood of drugs and drinking mixed in?

1) Was this post supposed to be on this thread? It doesn’t seem to fit.

2) Since you’re talking isis we already KNOW everything we need to know about their culture. They are moslems. The only answer is to kill them all.

I’ve read their scriptures. They are commanded to kill all of us. Nothing will ever change that command. We can either fight back and eliminate the problem, or we can die. Those are the only two choices.

It is sad that conversation, even hostile argument, is over. All that remains then is might and blood. Must we try harder or is it just that they accept their argument is completely untennable, hence avoid the exposure to their supporters?

the left has never been tolerant of other views. They have never wanted people to hear other opinions, and that probably does reflect the fact that they are perfectly aware that most leftist views do not withstand scrutiny. But until Rush started broadcasting and reaching a wide audience, real opposition voices simply did not have an outlet within the major media. Thus, the leftists were content to give lip service to free speech, since they knew that the message that people heard constantly was that of the left.

Spot on.
McCain-Feingold and all the other “campaign finance reform” legislation is an unconstitutional abridgment of freedom of the press. And yet it became law not because it was favored by the people, but only because it was favored by those who style themselves “the press.”
Note that I did not say “freedom of speech,” but “freedom of the press.” Why? Because speech arguably doesn’t cost any money, but you cannot seriously propose that freedom of the press can exist without the ability to spend money on presses, ink, paper, and so forth. And you cannot argue that the money for those things must come from profits on the sale of newspapers, either. To do so would be to assert that no one can exercise freedom of the press without already being in the business of operating a press. Any such argument is a way of grandfathering in the establishment press - and grandfathering out everyone else.
No, freedom of the press is the right of the people to spend money buying or renting a printing press or any product of “the progress of science and useful arts” which may serve the purpose of a press.

“I would argue that the left has never been tolerant of other views.”

Truth told. Look how they fight to keep pregnant women from viewing an ultrasound of the child inside them before choosing abortion. They know that if the woman has complete information about that which she is considering, she will more likely choose not to kill. Proof they are not pro-choice, but pro-death.

You are right, their views will not withstand scrutiny. Their views cannot compete with the truth.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.