Who Has Free Speech at Stanford?

Hat tip Stanford Review and Jihad Watch


The Stanford Review has published an opinion piece by Professor Andrew Ziperski which shows just how scary discourse on college campuses has become. The letter was posted in Jihad Watch because Ziperski singled out Robert Spencer and Milo Yiannopoulos as speakers who should not be allowed to speak on campus. Yet, he wants speakers who will be provocative and make people uncomfortable.

"....those who are invited to speak as part of the Conversations must be provocative, and they must make us uncomfortable. This does not mean, of course, that speakers whose primary (or only) goal is provocation ought to be invited; people like Milo Yiannopoulos and Robert Spencer add no value to a campus like ours, and I would strongly oppose an invitation extended to them or those who employ their tactics." 


Typical leftist professor. In truth it is only people who don't think like him who should be made uncomfortable. At the same time, those who share his views must never be made to feel uncomfortable, hence we have newly-coined expressions like trigger warnings, and micro/macro aggressions. Ziperski thinks that the words of people like Spencer have no place on a college campus. For example I once  heard three members of Jewish Voice for Peace describe pro-Israel speech as "useless discourse" and that pro-Israel students should not feel comfortable on campus. What this all means is that conservative, pro-life, pro-America or pro-Israel speakers should not be allowed to speak on campus. On the other hand, people like Louis Farrakhan, Ward Churchill, Steven Salaita, Amir Abdel Malik Ali, and others on the fringe left are just fine because they, well, make us feel uncomfortable. (I have selected these four as examples, not Ziperski).

What kind of Stalinist thinking is this?

I have heard Spencer speak three times. He is in no way similar to Yiannopoulos in his speaking style, and it puzzles me how Ziperski could lump them together as being examples of being provocative. Spencer is a scholar and speaks in a professional style. In addition, he speaks and reads Arabic and is an expert on the Qu'ran. He has ample evidence to back up his points. However, Ziperski does not want students to be exposed to Spencer's knowledge because in our politically correct world, no criticism of Islam is allowed. No serious discussion of whether the teachings of Islam are contributing to the worldwide terror, hate and  slaughters we witness on a daily basis.

It is obvious that professors like Ziperski (and they are too numerous to count, at least within the humanities) have no concept of what free speech means. They think it applies only to them and not to those with whom they disagree.

When controversies like this occur on college campuses, I try to find out what the college newspaper is writing about it. Unfortunately, the Stanford Review has no space for reader comments because it is imperative that student readers are exposed to well thought out, well written responses. Ziperski's column is low hanging fruit for anyone who really understands what free speech is supposed to mean in our country.

*Update: I incorrectly identified Ziperski as a professor.  He is a Stanford student.For that reason, I should cut him some slack.