The editorial completely misses the facts of recent incidents, in its'
attempt to put over some right wing point.Speakers who would have
offended the students by their presence were protested by the students. Perhaps
the DN editors would sit for a speech by someone who helped create the Iraq war,
but students should hear people who inspire them.Controversial
people and points of view are for the classroom, not commencement
celebration.However, I suppose we will be seeing Dan Savage speak at
BYU at the urging of the DN editorial board.
Students/workers need to be able to take control of their own futures. An
example of this is found in Europe where worker self-directed enterprises
(WSDEs) are becoming more important. In such enterprises, each worker has two
job descriptions. First, he/she has assigned tasks in the enterprise's
division of labor. Second, he/she participates in the democratic decisions by
all workers about what, how and where to produce and how to distribute the
enterprise's profits. In WSDEs, workers comprise their own boards of
directors.The workers decide what education to require of
themselves. But to make this sort of thing work they have to be able to form
cooperatives and make them work. The huge Mondragon cooperative in Spain has
its own university where, among more conventional courses, students are taught
how to form WSDE's. Empower people, don't treat them as
Nothing more than liberal fascism exposing itself!
"put the petulant disruptors in their place."How dare those
pesky youngins exercise thier rights to free speech!
A University should be the last place on earth to censor someone because he or
she has different ideas. When truth is the object of learning, hearing opposing
ideas an excellent way to see which points to explore further. Our personal
knowledge is expanded when we are presented new ideas. If we are wise, we
listen before researching and we research before deciding which idea has the
most merit.It's not just Universities where close-minded people
reject ideas. That trait can be found almost anywhere. Look at the posts
commenting on letters in any newspaper that has an electronic edition.
Close-minded people constantly reject anything that opposes their viewpoint by
"shouting down" those they oppose. Listen to people taking. So many
times, they only want to hear from others who support their point of view. Look
at the present Administration in Washington. With millions of people
unemployed, there is no one with extensive business experience serving at a
cabinet level position. Open-minded people are not afraid of
hearing new things. They are invigorated by new and different ideas.
For all the lip-service given to diversity, the Left is strikingly intolerant
toward diversity of thought.
So conservatives can stand up for what they believe in and make themselves heard
while liberals should just shut up and accept what they're given. Good to
These "universities" should lose their tax free status for being
political activists groups. If the TEA party gets targeted, why let these fools
off the hook? Where is Lois Lerner? Where is Harry Reid? Where is Obama? If
Fidel Castro or Mao tse Tung or Joseph Stalin were to speak, these activists
would give them a standing ovation and tell us how "open minded and
tolerant" they are!
Um... people complained about Michelle Obama speaking at a high school
graduation too and she withdrew as well, this isn't only a left thing.
Again, we see posters complaining about the liberal left while turning a blind
eye to the same actions by the conservative right.Funny how we see
only what we want to see.
The minute BYU does something that highlights a liberal in a big way, please let
me know. Frankly, the fact that students at some universities don't want
to listen to certain speakers is no big deal. It is, after all, their
graduation and their experience. So again, back to BYU. I've seen a
prominent LDS Democrat treated poorly by BYU audiences. In the spirit of the
old blues song, before you accuse me, take a look at yourself. Both in practice
and in spirit. Disclosure: I'm a BYU grad and have been connected to the
school since childhood.
I wonder if BYU ever canceled a speaker based on his/her "liberal
fascist" beliefs. And if that ever happened, did Mike R. or M-man object,
insisting that the airing of different beliefs is a good thing?
If these student protests demonstrate "TOLERANCE"... then I need a new
dictionary.And if I'm not mistaken, these were LIBERAL student
groups, protesting having to tolerate the presence of a Conservative guest at
their University, and maybe hear a Conservative point of view (possibly, we
don't know what the guest may have said if they were allowed to speak).Liberals.. need to teach your kids again. Teach them what
"Tolerance" means. By YOUR example.
Bob Kportland, ORYou have conveniently forgotten that
virtually all Democrat leaders voted in favor of the Iraq war during Bush's
first term and Mr. Obama took ownership of the Afghan war. By that metric, there
is virtually no one who should speak at a commencement. Like the Bolsheviks,
today's left cannot tolerate open discussion.
I believe the Editorial Board does not understands that many believe the Iraq
War was morally and legally wrong and the American people were deliberately
deceived. Should we now honor those individuals who were in a position of
responsibility and give them a stage and tell our children how they should
influence the future generation.
@Bob K,Re: "Controversial people and points of view are for the
classroom, not commencement celebration"...So... if
controversial people and points of view are only for the classroom... why did
"Student Leaders" at UVU (a VERY Conservative campus) invite Michael
Moore to speak there in 2004 (while he was hammering our President)?Books about it (Google "Free Speach 101 - The Utah Valley Uproar over
Michael Moore")The movie (Google "This Divided
State")Some background for those with limited memory..."IN THE FALL OF 2004, just weeks before the already hostile national
elections, student leaders at Utah Valley State invited one of the most
controversial figures in America, film maker Michael Moore, to one of the most
conservative campuses in the country"....There were protests,
but they were wrong-headed (same as the protests at liberal Universities). But
the UVU did not give in (unlike the liberal Universities)The author
of the book says, "It was made because the underlying issue throughout the
controversy -- constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech -- trumps personal
preferences"...I agree.Although many students
protested... the administration DEMONSTRATED "tolerance", and
didn't fold to vocal intolerant protesters (as these liberal Universities
The hypocrisy of the Deseret News bashing closed minded universities while
sharing an owner with Byu, one of the most closed minded universities in the
country, is staggering.
@isrred,About BYU being closed minded... The last speaker I remember
being protested by BYU students (big time protests)..... was Dick Cheney (a
Conservative). So if they are so closed minded... why would students at this
fairly conservative school protest Dick Cheney speaking at their
commencement?Do you remember those protests? They were conducted
by the supposedly "Tolerant" left-leaning students. It caused a lot of
controversy. Surely you can remember it....If not... Google
"LDS Church concerning Cheney visit to BYU"...The LDS Church
issued a statement concerning the controversy. Read it... you'll find
it's not closed minded. The protesters were the ones being "closed
minded", and trying to limit someone else's right to free speach...
I was a student at BYU with Ted Kennedy spoke. When he started denouncing the
government for the Vietnam War, he was booed of the stage. Maybe he thought
that all college students hated their government. Maybe he thought that all
college students were on drugs and into the Berkley lifestyle. But, he was
invited to speak and he was allowed to say what he wanted to say.
Nate: "For all the lip-service given to diversity, the Left is strikingly
intolerant toward diversity of thought."And Liberty University
last had an evolutionary biologist on its biology faculty when? Or invited
Richard Dawkins as a commencement speaker when?
Bob K nailed it. This is not a debate or a classroom discussion, it is a
commencement speech. Despite this low-information opinion piece from the
DesNews, college campuses still host a variety of speakers throughout any given
year with widely disparate opinions - I attended dozens upon dozens of such
speeches and debates while in school.In this case, the students have
no clue what Condi Rice et al were going to say so they are not protesting
Condi's opinions. Rather, they are calling into question her character.
They do not want their commencement speech to be given by someone who
facilitated the death of over 100,000 Iraqis and thousands of American soldiers
- as well as costing Americans nearly two trillion dollars (where are you fiscal
conservatives?). They are not protesting her opinions, they are protesting her
actions. Condi's right to speak her mind has not been limited; she can go
on any Sunday morning show, say what she wants, and reach a far wider audience
than the few thousand that would have been in attendance at the commencement.
This is not the trampling of free speech, it is the exercise of it.
I could not disagree more with the DN editorial. The "fundamental
purpose" of a university is to teach people how to seek truth, beauty, and
goodness. "Marketable skills" are SECONDARY.
@Irony Guy I agree that education is it own reward, but
today's students simply cannot ignore marketability upon graduation. The
situation for labor is just too tight.
@Stalwart Sentinel,If they were calling Rice's character into
question (because she facilitated the death of over 100,000 Iraqis and thousands
of American soldiers)... then Hillary Clinton is disqualified from speaking at
any of these events as well. Most of those deaths occurred when she was the
Secretary of State and facilitating what was going on in those wars.I think it's pretty obvious it wasn't her character that was in
question. Rice has a pretty good reputation of being a good person, and a good
speaker. I think it's obvious the objection was because she's of a
different political persuasion (she's from the party their teachers vilify
daily in class).But IF Secretary Clinton would also be disqualified
for the same reason... then I guess you may be right.But I suspect
Clinton would be allowed to speak. So maybe I'm right, and it's the
vilification of the party she represents that mattered to these protesters.Last comment I think...
I find it interesting that liberals constantly defend their bad behavior by
saying that conservatives do it so they can to. This is the primary argument of
posters like BobK, KJB1, Schnee, JoeBlow, Mark B, Esquire, isrred, et al. In
fact, as I look at this list (gleaned from the first 20 responses) I see very
little sign of broad thinking. Instead I see herd mentality as if they are all
copying each others thoughts. What happened to the days when people could
formulate their own thoughts instead of just piling on top of the thoughts of
others?But the real point is that liberals apparently aspire to be
as good as, but no better, than conservatives. In essence, liberals aspirations
are to justify their behavior and words based on the worst they can find.
"Recent surveys have shown that many colleges and universities are doing a
poor job preparing young people for a life in the workforce."Could it just be that college students are not inspired by the thought of
flipping hamburgers.Businessmen believe that the fundamental purpose
of education is to create properly trained employees. If that is true, we are
just wasting money by educating people beyond high school. Or
could it just be that universities have more profitable irons in the fire than
@joe5"I find it interesting that liberals constantly defend their bad
behavior by saying that conservatives do it so they can to. "I
was just pointing out this goes both ways. Personally, I'm not particularly
fond of these sorts of protests, but hey, if people on either side want to do
that I suppose that's their prerogative. I went to Sarah Palin, Ron Paul,
and Ann Coulter's events at Penn State while I was there, and not for any
sort of heckling; just listened (I still have an autographed Ron Paul campaign
sign so that's pretty cool).
@Ultra Bob You must not be a business man. Business is motivated to make a
profit. If business can make a profit by financing education so that graduates
are qualified to "flip burgers" than that would be sad, if true.
However, the logic is flawed. The education business is in the business to make
a profit also - by convincing people that they can offer a superior education
for the best price. The education business is failing because it offers such
curriculum as "women studies" and "African Studies. Those appear to
be curriculum that would support government employment, rather than private
business (wasted time in my opinion). Business is interested in hard working,
dedicated, well spoken and well written individuals, who are willing and able to
meet the needs of its customers. The more education and the more experience, the
better, as far as business is concerned. Government, in order to maintain power
and to create a "utopian" environment where the minions do the work for
the "enlightened," is invested in ignorance in education - not business.
2bits - I don't think the proper term for Hillary Clinton is
"disqualified" but I would certainly call into question whether she
should speak at a commencement too. However, not for the reasons you outline
because they are factually inaccurate. First, far more people were killed in
Iraq prior to Hillary becoming SoS, it's undeniable; please look it up for
yourself. Second, while I'm not a fan of Hillary, she became SoS in 2009
and helped usher the end of military combat by 2010. Condi, on the other hand,
lied numerous times in public and private in order to tip the scales in the
direction of invasion. Again, I am not a Hillary Clinton fan; she
is a shill for large corporations and the political status quo but her negative
activity with respect to Iraq pales in comparison to Condi's. Condi is
quite possibly guilty of committing war crimes, Clinton not even close.So, while I support the notion that Hillary should not give a commencement
speech, she is far more reputable to do so when compared to someone like Condi
who has her hands partially stained with the murder of thousands of innocent
civilians and American soldiers.
Mikhail.True, I flunked Business. I was told that I just
didn't have that killer instinct. However, that deficit in my character
didn't prevent me from learning about the why, what and wherefore of
business. Businessmen often see themselves as deities above the
natural, normal human being. To that end they believe that their talents and
opportunities come from their God or sometimes just themselves. They express
this in their oft quoted "I did it myself". That attitude translates
into an assumed divine right to manipulate the lives of others. Its that last
part that I disagree with. The founding fathers were , businessmen,
politicians and a part of the rich and powerful. Regardless of their true
motives, they put some words down promising rights and freedoms for all. I
dedicate my life to hold them to their words.
The current higher education model will be irrelevant when employers stop being
impressed by it.The only reason any of us need a degree is to get a
job position that REQUIRES it. Otherwise, we could just be smart and
experienced. I have over 180 college credits but no bachelor's
degree. Therefore I'm educated more than most with a 4 year degree but I
can't get e job that REQUIRES a bachelor's degree.
It' a scary moment for me tonight, I actually agree with Mike Richards...
To Mike Richards....did you read your own letter? The exact same thing could
have been said by a supposed liberal. Some very fine liberal people have been
taken out of the conservative arena by the same arguments that you put up. Is
BYU having a liberal speaker at their graduation? Wouldn't that be nice
for them as they enter the real world to hear another point of view also?
The problem for colleges is that at some point, businesses decided they
didn't want educated people that could learn to do the job that the
business would train them in, instead they want the college to train their
employee as well.That's ludicrous.So now we have an
entitled generation that uses social media to push minority ideas into an
undeserved limelight, and administrations that are afraid of the media and
labels, and even more worried about what that could do to their bottom line
profits than about education and integrity.
Some would tell us us that "liberal" means acceptance of
"immoral" or "amoral" conduct. That's nonsense. Liberal
does not require someone to check his brain at the door; it only requires him to
listen to other ideas. Only a fool would NOT use his intellectual tools to
evaluate right from wrong and good from evil. It seems that too many people
think that only those who tell us us that there is no God, that nothing is
absolute, that good and evil exist only in bigotted minds, are
"liberal". what they fail to recognise is the difference between
"godlessness" and "evil". God knows everything.
Man knows almost nothing. God understands the difference between good and evil.
Man, in his natural state, chooses evil, or carnal. Man, left to himself, will
self-destruct. Man, with God's help, will survive. A truly liberal person
does not exclude God.
@Mike Richards"It seems that too many people think that only those who
tell us us that there is no God"Heh, I'm a liberal
Christian. I suppose you should introduce me to these random liberals who think
Re: Schnee,You tell us that you are a "liberal Christian".
Does that mean that you are a Christian or does that mean that you think that
you are free to define what the word " Christian" means? I am not
picking nits. Christ defined the word "Christian". To be included into
those who align themselves as Christians also requires that they accept Christ,
His doctrines, and His restrictions. "Liberal" and "Christian"
are opposing labels. Christ told us as much when He reminded us that many who
say "Lord, Lord" will be rejected at the "gate".Everyone is free to live as they wish, and to receive a reward in direct
proportion to their lifestyle, but non-liberal limitations are placed on those
who claim to be "Christians". Christ reserved the definition of
"Christian" to Himself. He is the most conservative of conservatives,
reminding us that few will be found among those "qualified" as His
followers.You've posted many times. It's abundantly clear
where you stand.
Mike Richards - Spare us the drugstore religious speak. I find more Christlike
attributes among those at a civil rights rally for a livable wage or a protest
to protect our natural resources than any Tea Party gathering, pro-death penalty
hatefest, or 2nd Amendment "show off yer killin' machine" event.
And guess who are the ones constantly screaming "Lord, Lord" though they
hold no Christian values? Conservatives. Indeed, Christ was the ultimate
liberal - He lived His life according to His own precepts and allowed others to
live as they saw fit. He understood that His example would lead others to want
to follow Him - He did not need to compel others through force. Conversely, Lucifer sought to require everyone to live according to his moral
dictates - just as modern-day conservatism seeks to utilize the machinations of
government to force it's warped view of moralism on the Nation. Be honest
with yourself, nearly every political stance you take is rooted in your own
personal, moral code - conservatives use a secular government to force their
religion on others. It is not possible to be a conservative and a good
Christian, they are mutually exclusive.
Stalwart Sentinel: Yeah, because that is what Christ did - attend rallies and
use rhetoric against those who dared to disagree with his personal philosophies.
Your whole comment reeks of Christlike words, attitudes, and behavior - NOT.Today, the only ones forcing their thoughts, views, attitudes, and
behaviors on others are liberals.
joe5: "I find it interesting that liberals constantly defend their bad
behavior by saying that conservatives do it so they can to."As
Schnee pointed out above, it is a two way street. That mode of posturing is a
general human trait not confined to any particular ideology. In my observation,
whining about alleged double standards is common in conservative media. Just
last week, a recurring talking point on several Fox programs was the Michael Sam
kiss, how it was positively treated in news coverage, and how (in their minds)
Tim Tebow's religious poses were always negatively covered (I recall quite
a bit of favorable coverage myself, to the point that his praying stance entered
the lexicon as a verb: Tebowing). I don't consume that much conservative
media, but when I do I can reliably count on somebody saying something to the
effect of, "Well, if a CONSERVATIVE did/said that, the liberal media would
be howling." Such indignant huffing about perceived double standards may be
a liberal meme as well, but I don't notice them as much (motes and beams,
@Mike Richards"Does that mean that you are a Christian or does that
mean that you think that you are free to define what the word "
Christian" means?"It means I'm both a liberal and a
Christian. The defining feature of Christianity is belief that Jesus Christ died
for our sins, and I believe that. I believe your church is Christian even though
I don't agree with all their beliefs. Usually the same deference to
self-identification is given in return.@Stalwart Sentinal"It is not possible to be a conservative and a good Christian, they are
mutually exclusive."Honestly, your post sounded like a lot of
the "drugstore religious speak" you just criticized, just flipped
It is sad that universities have decayed into mob rule. Graduation, once a
celebration, now is a last chance for the inexperienced and immature to
misbehave in front of an audience by defying the administration's
invitation for a speaker who will say things that few will remember the next
week.Perhaps the ceremony could be made optional, attend if you
want, get your diploma in the mail (which many who "walk" still do) if
you are not interested or willing to be polite and listen even though you
disagree. Many of the students and parents have sacrificed much for this day
and to hog the limelight and spoil a ceremony that is significant in the lives
of classmates is boorish and thuggish.I have graduated three times
and can't remember the speaker let alone the message. Save the political
drama for the campaign. Now for reality: the first payment on student loans
will be due and payable in about six months. No one will care about campus
activism as the quest for employment overshadows political concerns.Welcome to reality.