“What really bothered me is, the whole idea is that at a liberal arts college, we need to be hearing a diversity of opinion. I don’t think we should be tolerating [George’s] conservative views because that dominant culture embeds these deep inequalities in our society. We should not be conceding to the dominant culture by saying that the so-called “progressive left†is marginalizing the conservative,†Erin Ching ‘16 said.
On the other hand, some students acknowledged the lack of large-scale protest as progress for the campus.
Mind you (and feel free to disagree) this doesn't mean that I believe that a venue has a duty to host an "opposing viewpoint" for every discussion. Years ago, Oprah announced that she was no longer going to have some jackass on the show to be counterpoint to every discussion of gay issues. Indeed, at some point we stopped having a member of the KKK on to balance civil rights activists on TV as well. Having Scott Lively on a show about equal rights for gay people would be like having an arsonist on a show about historical preservation. If you want to have a functional discussion on marriage equality, then it might be appropriate to have a lawyer or politician on who is concerned about some functional aspect in the law, but his religious views are utterly irrelevant.
Comment