Odd. It seems like Brett Stephens thinks commencement speakers have an entitlement to offend without anyone offending them right back.

Who, exactly, is the one seeking protecting from insult?

All this sounds like vigorous free speech.

Turk,

The original speaker was kicked out because of his political views. The replacement speaker was supposed to conform and be inoffensive. That things did not work out how the students and faculty planned it doesn't mean they weren't aiming for censorship. They were just ineffectual at enforcing it. Were their actions illegal, no. But they are disgusting.

The original speaker was kicked out because of his political views.

So? If we say outrageous things we bear the consequences, including that others might find us offensive and push back.

If, for example, when I graduated in 1982 Yassir Arafat had been invited to speak, would it have been odd if students yelped and screamed?

If a polarizing figure comes to speak, do you really think students should remain silent? Is that the lesson to teach them? "Just shut up and be sheeple!"

Who is the snowflake in a polarizing debate?

1. The original speaker that doesn't want protest?
2. The Admin that disinvited?
3. The students who protested and said the speaker was offensive?

I speak only generally, based on your excerpts, as the original piece is behind a paywall.

But the point remains in such discussions that if you want to speak/write in a confrontational manner then you also have to face the fact that others will do the same right back at you.

That is what makes the world go around in a free society.

Turk, you're missing the point. The point is not that the students have no right to object to the viewpoints of the speakers; it's that refusing to hear the speakers (and making sure no one else does, either) is illiberal, closed-minded, and stupid. It is an attitude that says to everyone, "I am afraid to have my preconceptions challenged, and I refuse to allow you to hear any viewpoint but mine." It is a viewpoint that says, "I want you all to be MY kind of sheeple."

A semi-mature individual who was afraid that s/he couldn't listen to Condoleeza Rice without committing an act of violence would simply stay home. A typical liberal American college senior, apparently, insists that Rice not be allowed to pollute the Special Snowflake Commencement and Self-Congratulation Festival.

Turk, nice try at confounding the issue. But we here don't fall for that. (I notice you seem to be new here... did you arrive here via a Google Alert? What was your trigger phrase?) The problem is that the people who are getting speakers shut down find absolutely everyone who disagrees with their views in the slightest way to be a "polarizing figure". We're not talking Arafat or David Duke here, we're talking about people who command a lot of respect even from people who disagree with them.

As for people whose rights are trampled on, what about the students who did want to hear the original speaker? Do they not have any say-so in the matter? Apparently not. Only political correctness gets a voice on campus these days. Let me give you a clue: Harry Reid, the Speaker of the House and arguably the third most powerful person in the U.S. these days, is seriously proposing a Constitution amendment to repeal the First Amendment. The totalitarians are smelling victory, and arguments like yours are exactly the sort of propaganda they used to confound the discussoin and distract attention.

@Grey Ghost
The point is not that the students have no right to object to the viewpoints of the speakers; it's that refusing to hear the speakers (and making sure no one else does, either) is illiberal, closed-minded, and stupid.

OK, so call them illiberal, closed-minded and stupid. Call them anything you want. So? Have you ever seen a protest of any kind that didn't have folks saying that about one side or the other?

I just find it incredibly ironic that some people claiming commencement speaker protestors are little snowflakes are, in fact, guilty of same.

@CousinDave:
I notice you seem to be new here... did you arrive here via a Google Alert? What was your trigger phrase?

Thank you for the laugh. I'm guessing Amy enjoyed it also.

As for people whose rights are trampled on, what about the students who did want to hear the original speaker? Do they not have any say-so in the matter? Apparently not.

First, there is no "right" that is trampled on. The First Amendment doesn't guarantee you Condi Rice as a commencement speaker.

Second, of course the students that want to hear the particular speaker have a say-so. All they have to do is put pressure on the commencement committee to ignore the "illiberal, closed-minded and stupid" naysayers.

And if they don't want to come, they won't come.

This is called debate. And it is very healthy. The one with the better argument usually wins. But if they decider-in-chief makes too many lousy decisions and fails to account for the entire student body, that person may be out of a job.

"As for people whose rights are trampled on, what about the students who did want to hear the original speaker? Do they not have any say-so in the matter?" - Cousin Dave

I could see a student conversation going like this:

"But I wanted Condoleeza Rice to speak at our commencement. I was really looking forward to that."

"Well, that's because you're a lousy racist, sexist Republican who doesn't care about other people!"

"...of course the students that want to hear the particular speaker have a say-so. All they have to do is put pressure on the commencement committee to ignore the "illiberal, closed-minded and stupid" naysayers. And if they don't want to come, they won't come. This is called debate." - Turk

I'm pretty certain that the students who protest commencement speakers do so without advance publicity among the general student population. They're able to organize and show up en masse to voice their objections. The administration instantly caves into the pressure without finding out if there are students who support the original choice for speaker.

In order for there to be a debate, both sides must be given an opportunity to show up and express their views. One side storming the administration building is not debate.

I dream of the day...maybe next year...when the next group of students who "disinvite" a speaker for the college administration to say to the students, " Commencement is cancelled. Turn in your robes. You will receive your degree in the mail. "

@Fayd:
I'm pretty certain that the students who protest commencement speakers do so without advance publicity among the general student population. They're able to organize and show up en masse to voice their objections.

The fact that one "side" of a debate -- any debate -- may be indifferent is not exactly a winning argument.

One side storming the administration building is not debate

That is trespass, it is illegal, and has nothing to do with anything I have written. I've written about the irony of the situation, and asking who, in fact, is the delicate snowflake in such situations.

(P.S. Amy -- there is another link to the article out there that is not behind a paywall.)

It's the same argument that has been going on since the founding of universities: who was this place established to serve, the faculty or the students?

And now administrators have entered the argument as a third party demanding obeisance.

One side storming the administration building is not debate

"That is trespass, it is illegal, and has nothing to do with anything I have written." - Turk

I was writing figuratively, but the sentiment is still the same.

It probably didn't even occur to those who wanted Condoleeza Rice at their commencement that there would be opposition to her appearance as she actually does command a lot of respect among those in the liberal community. Since no one was expecting an uprising among the students, there was no anticpation of a debate.

"That is trespass, it is illegal, and has nothing to do with anything I have written. I've written about the irony of the situation, and asking who, in fact, is the delicate snowflake in such situations."

And it is equally a trespess upon civilized debate for a decision to be made upon the demands of one pressure group (of whom the faculty and administration consider a kindred spirit) without the other side getting a chance to speak. I wonder how many students even heard that Condi Rice was going to be the speaker before her appearance was cancelled.

Further: Turk, I am a daily reader here and I don't recall ever seeing your name on a comment even once. I challenge you to name three threads that you have participated in. Until then, you are the fucking special snowflake here. So speak up, Big Postmodern Moral Equivalancy Man.

Sad, sad, sad metamorphosis of what passes for philosophocal ideals on too many college campi.

It used to be, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Rene Descartes.

Now it seems to be, "If you don't believe and feel exactly as I do I will cover my ears and say nah, nah, nah as loud as I can." - Precious snowflake students and professors.

Sorry, misquote. That was Votaire, not Descartes. Brain freeze.

That was Votaire, not Descartes.

Pedantry alert: Actually, it was a summation of Voltaire's beliefs and was written by his biographer, Evelyn Beatrice Hall, in her book, Friends of Voltaire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall

@CousinDave:

Until then, you are the fucking special snowflake here. So speak up, Big Postmodern Moral Equivalancy Man.

I'm sorry, but your attempt at insult must be rejected and returned to you as lacking in sufficient color. Perhaps an interesting metaphor might work?

Here is a list of insults to help get you started:
http://www.corsinet.com/braincandy/insult.html

But your comment was not utterly without value, as it also reveals to others something else: When folks resort to ad hominem attack, it generally means they have lost a debate, or are incapable of discussing the merits (or lack thereof) of the issue at hand.

You seem to have demonstrated that well.

You may want to try again, and I'm hopeful that either the quality of your insult can be improved (feel free to use the link to get started, no need to thank me), or perhaps you may be able to improve the substance of the opinion you attempted to persuade with.

In either case, I wish you all the best.

"but your attempt at insult must be rejected"

I don't think he was trying to insult you. Based on my experience, he was just using my modus operandi to tell you we don't suffer fools well. Be well, unless you are an Obama voter.

Back in the days when we matriculated, the role of a college president was to provide football for the alumni, parking for the faculty, and sex for the students.

Wow, that is one busy president!

Well, I did intend to insult him, but I did so in the process of issuing him a challenge, which he totally failed at: (1) He has yet to actually to explain or defend the position he stated in his first post -- iteration does not constitute either exposition or debate, and is the type of tactic that propagandists employ; (2) he has totally failed to substantiate his claim of having an inside track with Amy. (Why is it that every Google Alert bomber that arrives here starts out by claiming to be big buds with Amy?)

Since we'll likely never see him again here, it really doesn't matter. But, in case he is part of an organized political trolling group, I want to point out the pattern so that everyone can recognize it when it happens.

@CousinDave:
He has yet to actually to explain or defend the position he stated in his first post

My position was that it was ironic. It is set forth in the first comment. If you don't understand that, there isn't much more to say.

he has totally failed to substantiate his claim of having an inside track with Amy.

Probably because I never I had an "inside track" or was "big buds," nor would it be relevant to any issue.

But, in case he is part of an organized political trolling group, I want to point out the pattern so that everyone can recognize it when it happens.

Strike three. I never wrote about politics. And there is a good reason. If the speaker was Donald Rumsfeld, I would expect protests from the left. If it was Barbra Streisand, George Clooney or Noam Chomsky opining on politics I would likewise expect protests from the right.

See how that works?

Perhaps, when it comes to simple matters of opinion, time would be better spent focusing on the actual opinion instead of the opinionator. It might lead to clearer thinking.

By delving into politics and personality you might tell us much about your mindset. But it doesn't address the very simple concept that the Brett Stephens piece complaining about complainers is ironic.