Welcome to College Confidential!

The leading college-bound community on the web

Sign Up For Free

Join for FREE, and start talking with other members, weighing in on community discussions, and more.

Also, by registering and logging in you'll see fewer ads and pesky welcome messages (like this one!)

As a CC member, you can:

  • Reply to threads, and start your own.
  • Post reviews of your campus visits.
  • Find hundreds of pages of informative articles.
  • Search from over 3 million scholarships.
Please take a moment to read our updated TOS, Privacy Policy, and Forum Rules.

Speaking Freely: What Students Think About Self-Expression at American Colleges

245

Replies to: Speaking Freely: What Students Think About Self-Expression at American Colleges

  • OHMomof2OHMomof2 Registered User Posts: 9,847 Senior Member
    there is absolutely no equivalence between Chelsea Manning not getting to be a visiting fellow and half of college students believing that "hate speech" is not protected by the 1st amendment.

    Correct, however that's not what I said. The equivalence I am making is between provocative right-wing speakers being dis-invited/shut down, and Chelsea Manning being dis-invited/shut down.

    Being a "visiting fellow" IS, essentially, being a speaker.
    The Institute of Politics runs what's called the Visiting Fellows program, which each semester invites a select number of "prominent" political practitioners to the university to serve for a shorter period of time - often a week - than a resident fellowship, which lasts a full academic semester.

    The list of fellows, current (like Spicer and Lewandowski) and former (tons of politicians, journalists and public figures of various sorts including pretty controversial ones) is available here: http://iop.harvard.edu/fellows/list

    Manning didn't get shut down by students, Manning got shut down by powerful adults.
  • ZinheadZinhead Registered User Posts: 2,562 Senior Member
    Manning didn't get shut down by students, Manning got shut down by powerful adults.

    Harvard rescinded the distinction being named a fellow, but allowed Manning to speak. Can you see the difference?
  • OHMomof2OHMomof2 Registered User Posts: 9,847 Senior Member
    I see *a* difference in that Harvard said we are taking away your title but we will "let you" speak (for pay?), but when Lewandowski is kept on a fellow and Manning is not, there's a double standard at work here - and not the one most people complain about here on CC.

    But really, it was a big FU from Harvard. And they made some incredibly twisty pretzels trying to justify it because it is contrary to the stated goals of the visiting fellows program.
    In general across the School, we do not view the title of “Fellow” as conveying a special honor; rather, it is a way to describe some people who spend more than a few hours at the School.

    We invited Chelsea Manning to spend a day at the Kennedy School. Specifically, we invited her to meet with students and others who are interested in talking with her, and then to give remarks in the Forum where the audience would have ample opportunity—as with all of our speakers—to ask hard questions and challenge what she has said and done. On that basis, we also named Chelsea Manning a Visiting Fellow. We did not intend to honor her in any way or to endorse any of her words or deeds, as we do not honor or endorse any Fellow.
    https://www.hks.harvard.edu/announcements/statement-dean-elmendorf-regarding-invitation-chelsea-manning-be-visiting-fellow

    Harvard K backed down when pressure from some very powerful government officials was applied. IMO this is worse than students not wanting to hear a speaker and protesting.
  • Ohiodad51Ohiodad51 Registered User Posts: 2,158 Senior Member
    @OHMomof2, I can't believe that you don't see a distinction between a student's heckler's veto and an institutional decision.
  • OHMomof2OHMomof2 Registered User Posts: 9,847 Senior Member
    That's not what I said either, @Ohiodad51

    Institutions decide to dis-invite speakers fairly often, OP starts a thread on them most every time.

    I notice none was started when Harvard-Kennedy dis-invited Manning, though, That doesn't fit the narrative of a certain type of free speech champion and a certain type of oppressive censor I suppose.
  • Ohiodad51Ohiodad51 Registered User Posts: 2,158 Senior Member
    I don't think I am any more intellectually limited than the next guy, but I honestly don't see the relationship here. If you want to make the point that not making Manning a fellow is like disinviting Condi Rice (off the top of my head), then that is a different debate.
  • ZinheadZinhead Registered User Posts: 2,562 Senior Member
    edited October 12
    Institutions decide to dis-invite speakers fairly often, OP starts a thread on them most every time.

    I notice none was started when Harvard-Kennedy dis-invited Manning, though, That doesn't fit the narrative of a certain type of free speech champion and a certain type of oppressive censor I suppose.

    Why are you spreading miss-information? Manning was never dis-invited.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/15/chelsea-manning-fellowship-cia-head-cancels-harvard-speech-over-offer-to-traitor
    “In general across the School, we do not view the title of ‘fellow’ as conveying a special honour; rather, it is a way to describe some people who spend more than a few hours at the School.

    “[However] we are withdrawing the invitation to her to serve as a visiting fellow – and the perceived honour that it implies to some people – while maintaining the invitation for her to spend a day at the Kennedy School and speak in the school’s forum.”’

  • OHMomof2OHMomof2 Registered User Posts: 9,847 Senior Member
    edited October 12
    @zinhead Was Manning initially invited to be a visiting fellow? Was that invitation then withdrawn under pressure from various government officials?

    I think that's what makes it extra scary - that government officials caused the invite to be rescinded. Not protesting students, who have little power to censor speakers in the grand scheme of things.
  • ZinheadZinhead Registered User Posts: 2,562 Senior Member
    edited October 12
    @OHMomof2 - It would be helpful if you actually became acquainted with the facts before posting so I do not have to transcribe the article linked in post 22.

    Manning was initially invited to speak as a visiting fellow. After the invitation was made public, Mike Pompeo, director of the CIA, cancelled his speaking engagement at Harvard. At the same time, the former deputy director of the CIA, Mike Morell, also resigned from his fellowship at Harvard’s Belfer school over Manning’s invitation. You can easily google Pompeo's letter with his reasons for withdrawing.

    Subsequently, Harvard withdrew the Manning's designation of visiting fellow, but maintained Manning's invitation to visit and speak at the school. Manning then sensed a publicity coup, and decided not to accept the invitation to speak.
  • OHMomof2OHMomof2 Registered User Posts: 9,847 Senior Member
    With the exception of your editorial comment at the end, those are the facts, yes.
  • doschicosdoschicos Registered User Posts: 14,084 Senior Member
    Does that make Pompeo and Morell snowflakes? :)
  • roethlisburgerroethlisburger Registered User Posts: 1,578 Senior Member
    edited October 12
    but when Lewandowski is kept on a fellow and Manning is not, there's a double standard at work here - and not the one most people complain about here on CC.

    Lewandowski isn't a convicted felon who was sentenced to 35 years in prison, and there are lots of Democrats who absolutely despise Manning.
  • doschicosdoschicos Registered User Posts: 14,084 Senior Member
    edited October 12
    Regardless of his politics, Corey is pretty useless IMO.
  • Ohiodad51Ohiodad51 Registered User Posts: 2,158 Senior Member
    Does that make Pompeo and Morell snowflakes?

    No, because they didn't show up at a speech by Manning and hurl inane insults, rush the stage, pull fire alarms, blow air horns, or demand safe spaces from the off chance that a rouge thought would some how make its way past their mental defenses.

    No one tried to stop Manning from speaking. That is inarguable. The effort to argue past that fact, like similar previous efforts to assert that the videos taken at places like Yale didn't actually show what they recorded, is very puzzling to me. Facts remain facts. Events occur or they do not.

    More broadly, I do not understand how people think it is persuasive to argue that protests of all kinds that fit their world view or which are undertaken by ideological allies are noble and good (remember "dissent is the highest form of patriotism"?), but that any effort other than full throated approval by the "other" side is out of bounds.
  • OHMomof2OHMomof2 Registered User Posts: 9,847 Senior Member
    @Ohiodad51 No, because they didn't show up at a speech by Manning and hurl inane insults, rush the stage, pull fire alarms, blow air horns, or demand safe spaces from the off chance that a rouge thought would some how make its way past their mental defenses.

    Well sure, they didn't have to. All THEY had to do was express their displeasure by withdrawing their own speaking engagements and threaten to do worse.

    They're not kids, they have far more power, and they obviously felt threatened enough to use it. The world IS their safe space and they made sure it stayed that way.
Sign In or Register to comment.