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?