The UC Meltdown part 2

What would a campus do to get a distinguished economist and academic to come and speak on campus? What if that economist had done great work both as the Secretary of Treasury and in the World Bank? What if that same distinguished economist had also done some things that many disagree with? Would it be OK to have him on a campus if he fired a Black media star "academic" whose scholarly record was a joke? Would they tolerate an economist who argued that one result of free trade is increased pollution in developing countries? Would they tolerate a former college president who raised questions about differences between men and women in the sciences - not in the sense of an absolute but more in the sense of how educators should deal with the issue? Would they tolerate this economist who also served as president of one of the flagship universities in the world and worked hard to reform undergraduate education?

Clearly, most thinking people would like to hear such a person. Indeed, part of the academic environment should be a locus for healthy debate and discussion. Some might think that Cornel West, the Black professor, should not have been fired. Others might believe that the environment is so pristine that the tradeoffs that this economist argued are not reasonable. Still others might question whether this economist's motives or knowledge about differences between the sexes are based on reliable research. All of those things can be debated and discussed. But not if you yammer to stop him from coming to campus.

UC Davis had been slated to have Larry Summers, the former Harvard president, come to campus for a lecture. But because of the intolerance of a group of professors on campus the invitation was withdrawn. They circulated a petition which read in part "this invitation is not only misguided but inappropriate at a time when the university is searching for a new president and continues to build and diversify its community." The leader of the group that got the invitation lifted commented for the Davis Enterprise “I was appalled that someone articulating that point of view would be invited by the regents,” she said. “This is a symbolic invitation and a symbolic measure that I believe sends the wrong message about the University of California and its cultural principles.”

Professor Stanton, the leader of the pack here, might also think about the symbol of controlling speech on campus. From my point of view it is a much greater wrong message.