Is This What It’s Come To?
That Bill Ayers was invited to speak at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln was in itself an outrage: he’s not used to being on campus without a nine-millimeter to take the Dean hostage and a Molotov cocktail to torch the library. Anyway, the average faculty has more than its share of Bill Ayerses—in the physics department alone.
But the cancellation is an even bigger outrage:
Just 11 days after next month’s election, the University of Illinois-Chicago professor, William Ayers, is scheduled to speak at a student research conference held by the UNL College of Education and Human Science.
Gov. Dave Heineman released a statement saying that UNL leaders should not allow Ayers, a 1960s radical-turned-professor at the University of Illinois, to talk during a campus event on Nov. 15.
“Chairman of the Board of Regents Chuck Hassebrook and President of the University J.B. Milliken should immediately rescind the invitation extended to Bill Ayers to speak at the University,” the governor said. “This is an embarrassment to the University of Nebraska and the State of Nebraska. Bill Ayers is a well known radical who should never have been invited to the University of Nebraska.”
Meanwhile, Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Nebraska, today said in a statement that he is disappointed that UNL invited William Ayers to speak on campus Nov. 15.
“His past involvement in a violent protest group and incendiary comments are not consistent with the agenda of unity that we need in America today,” Nelson said. “I encourage the university to reconsider this decision.”…
University officials said in a news release Friday evening that “the university’s threat assessment group monitored e-mails and other information UNL received regarding Ayers’ scheduled Nov. 15 visit and identified safety concerns which resulted in the university canceling the event.”
Mixed feelings: we on the political right have excoriated academe for its lack of political diversity and the absence of real free speech—so we can hardly support the disinvitation of a speaker, even one who does not exactly provide that diversity of thought we demand.
But if we are angry when conservative speakers are protested at campuses (when are they not?), we ought to be angry now. If they thought it was important to hear Ayers, then they ought to have made it work. To let emailers and bloodthirsty bloggers (don’t look at me) decide the agenda is a terrible precedent.
But Ayers’ unique viewpoint was never the point, was it? I’m betting the good folks in Lincoln were looking to capitalize on his recent notoriety, and when they couldn’t stand the heat they abandoned the kitchen.
It’s interesting that Democratic Senator Nelson condemned the decision to invite Ayers—and his comments (”the agenda of unity that we need in America today”) might explain why: it’s an embarrassment to their candidate. The “agenda of unity” is practically the Obama motto, and Ayers’ history of violent opposition to the government and values of the country is off-message and more than a little bothersome.
I want Ayers to speak not because I will like what he has to say; I want him to speak to not embarrass my political adversaries (or not just, anyway)—no, I want Ayers to speak because that’s what college campuses are supposed to do. If they don’t let someone as lionized in academia as Ayers speak, when will they ever let the demonized likes of John Bolton or David Horowitz or William Bennett speak?
In fact, that’s what a true institute of higher learning would have done: let Ayers speak, and let others speak. I can’t say I’m surprised it turned out this way, however.
Carol said,
October 18, 2008 @ 9:01 pm
typing one-handed due to very snuggly kitty.
anyway, i dont care how much it costs, but universities have got to put a stop to this crap on both sides. hire the security necessary to protect speakers, evict disruptive people from the hall until everyone learns some manners, do what is needed to re-civilize academia. only problem is, of course, getting the schools to actually behave impartially.
and now that i have had time to think a bit more, by eliminating requirements for civility for one side, the schools did this to themselves, hung a big ol’ kick me sign on their back.
or, as it says in the book of hosea, they sow the wind and reap the whirlwind. i sincerely hope the schools did not expect a different result.
Carlos said,
October 25, 2008 @ 6:02 am
I don’t agree as there is a difference in not inviting someone or even resending an invitation to speak and those in a crowd disrupting a speaker through heckling or even violence or any other distraction.
Looking at a person’s history and deciding because of their own actions whether past or present in some way makes them an unworthy candidate to speak at an institution of higher learning is NOT limiting their free speech at all. It is using some sound judgment as a publicly funded institution and showing some ethics and even in this case some patriotic pride if you will.
Bill Ayres is an unrepentant domestic terrorist and although I believe he should be in prison and not teaching anywhere in this country I also would not try to interfere with him speaking in public or private. That would be restricting free speech.
No, the University made a good decision on behalf of the school and the citizens of the state that fund the University by not allowing someone who is maybe arguably an enemy of the state.
I would expect the same if some foolish faculty member were to say invite Charlie Manson to speak on campus if he were by some horrible circumstance released from prison. (won’t happen but just for the sake of argument)
I think we could all agree that his rampage in the 60’s killing several including Sharon Tate and her unborn child makes him a monster of historical proportions but I submit Bill Ayres is in the same league as Charles Manson by cowardly bombing buildings and killing innocent civilians as were the Oklahoma bombers killing men, women and children.
I am glad he was canceled and hope more colleges will follow in suit.
Remember this was not about his political persuasion or even the content of his speeches but rather his criminal record and background and even more so his lack of remorse for his crimes. If the did it because he was a conservative or liberal or even a communist I would tend to agree with you but that isn’t the case here.
JMHO