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

135

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

  • OHMomof2OHMomof2 Registered User Posts: 10,576 Senior Member
    [quote @roethlisburger ...there are lots of Democrats who absolutely despise Manning.[/quote]

    Exactly. These free speech issues are not about political affiliation.
  • Ohiodad51Ohiodad51 Registered User Posts: 2,257 Senior Member
    ^ I admire the zeal with which you are attempting to grasp a very greasy thread at least.

    But no, I don't agree that Morrell and Pompeo are required to acquiesce to your preferred result.

    And like most people I believe there is a huge difference between refusing to participate in something with which you disagree and actively attempting to silence different opinions.

    And though you continue to blow right by the most salient point, for others who may be reading, neither Morrell nor Pompeo "threatened" anyone, or took any action to prevent Manning from speaking. The decision not to speak was Manning's alone.
  • OHMomof2OHMomof2 Registered User Posts: 10,576 Senior Member
    @Ohiodad51
    neither Morrell nor Pompeo "threatened" anyone, or took any action to prevent Manning from speaking
    Harvard withdraws Chelsea Manning invite after CIA Director dropped out of scheduled appearance in protest
    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/cia-director-mike-pompeo-no-show-scheduled-harvard-talk-article-1.3496603
    CIA director Mike Pompeo cancelled a scheduled appearance at Harvard Thursday after the university hired Chelsea Manning, a former Army private and leaker who Pompeo described as an “American traitor.”

    The cancellation came hours after former CIA deputy director Mike Morell resigned from his position at the school over Manning’s hiring.
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/pompeo-cancels-harvard-speech-over-manning-appointment/article/2009674
    Harvard withdraws invitation to Chelsea Manning after backlash
    CIA Director Mike Pompeo withdraws from speaking slot and former acting CIA Director Michael Morrel quits Harvard post over hiring.
    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/14/cia-michael-morell-quits-harvard-chelsea-manning-242738

    IDK how you define "action" but to most people, these are actions, protests if you will, designed to effect a change.

    Let's imagine for a moment this headline:

    Harvard withdraws invitation to Scooter Libby after backlash
    Attorney General Loretta Lynch withdraws from speaking slot and former CIA Director John Brennan quits Harvard post over hiring.


    I also think that would be worth calling Harvard out on.
  • ZinheadZinhead Registered User Posts: 2,610 Senior Member
    Here is a copy of Pompeo's letter to Harvard:

    https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/DirectorPompeoLettertoHarvard.pdf

    Note the sentence in the third paragraph which states:
    ..will continue to defend Ms. Manning's right to offer a defense of why she choose this path



  • Ohiodad51Ohiodad51 Registered User Posts: 2,257 Senior Member
    No. Morrell and Pompeo are entitled to decide who they will associate with, and it is wrong of you to state that their decision to withdraw their association with the program was a threat. No one ever told Manning that she couldn't speak, or in any way interfered with her accepting the invitation to do so. It is also wrong to intimate that they did. Period.

    Personally, and as I have said countless times, I think more speech is better then less. But I understand how individuals who have devoted their professional lives to intelligence would object strongly to being associated with someone who pled guilty to treason and whose actions in disseminating tens of thousands of pages of secret material inarguably put American and other lives at risk.

    How Manning became a rock star to the left simply because she is trans has always puzzled me.

    And equating Manning with Scooter Libby? Please.
  • OHMomof2OHMomof2 Registered User Posts: 10,576 Senior Member
    edited October 2017
    You can nitpick about Manning and Libby, but I used him as an example because both leaked state secrets, both could have endangered undercover agents and both were later pardoned. And if we care about free speech the nuances do not matter anyway, right?

    My point is when a conservative speaker is shut down by students, there is a very predictable outcry here, but when powerful conservatives shut a speaker down that they do not like, crickets.

    Manning is a great example of speech being chilled by powerful government officials. Harvard didn't want to lose those two (and likely more) prestigious and powerful affiliated fellows/whatever over this, so they made it basically impossible for Manning to come. "Oh you can still speak" is a little bone they threw out to cover themselves after they took a very public position against her.

    I'm not surprised you don't see it this way.
  • ucbalumnusucbalumnus Registered User Posts: 64,384 Senior Member
    With respect to freedom of speech, opposition to such is certainly not unique to college students, since a prominent older adult politician has been calling to revoke the broadcast license of a major television news network based on the content of what it airs.
  • ZinheadZinhead Registered User Posts: 2,610 Senior Member
    You can nitpick about Manning and Libby, but I used him as an example because both leaked state secrets, both could have endangered undercover agents and both were later pardoned.

    Libby was never pardoned.
  • Ohiodad51Ohiodad51 Registered User Posts: 2,257 Senior Member
    Libby didn't leak state secrets either (Richard Armitage leaked Plame's identity), nor did he plead guilty to treason (he was convicted of obstruction and making false statements to a grand jury) , or put American or allied lives in danger.

    And how exactly did Harvard make it "impossible" for Manning to speak?

    And yes, I do not think that everyone must universally accept the most leftward position on any given issue. You are right about that.
  • OHMomof2OHMomof2 Registered User Posts: 10,576 Senior Member
    edited October 2017
    Excuse me @zinhead. Commuted, not pardoned.

    And one more time for the peanut gallery - if we care about free speech the nuances do not matter anyway, right?
    Since a prominent older adult politician has been calling to revoke the broadcast license of a major television news network based on the content of what it airs.

    But he's not a college student! He's just the most powerful person in the country so it doesn't count. I cannot imagine the outcry if the previous president had suggested shutting down, say, Fox, over coverage of him. But another day, another "I can't imagine".
  • Ohiodad51Ohiodad51 Registered User Posts: 2,257 Senior Member
    And one more time for the peanut gallery - if we care about free speech the nuances do not matter anyway, right?

    Just a question, but who ever said that? There is an obvious difference between permitting speech and participating/approving of such speech.
    With respect to freedom of speech, opposition to such is certainly not unique to college students, since a prominent older adult politician has been calling to revoke the broadcast license of a major television news network based on the content of what it airs.

    and
    But he's not a college student! He's just the most powerful person in the country so it doesn't count. I cannot imagine the outcry if the previous president had suggested shutting down, say, Fox, over coverage of him. But another day, another "I can't imagine".

    Not a Trump fan. Not a fan of the way he tweets. But let's not pretend that Obama wasn't clear in his disdain for Fox. Like many things, we see an escalation here with Trump, both in the way he is covered by the media (surely neither of you can argue that Trump has gotten anywhere near the favorable treatment from the press that Obama received), and in his attacks on the media. Don't like either side of that, never said I did. And credit where credit is due, Obama was 100% correct in killing the efforts to revive the "fairness doctrine", which was the favored progressive weapon in their two decade attempt to shut down Rush Limbaugh.
  • OHMomof2OHMomof2 Registered User Posts: 10,576 Senior Member
    Just a question, but who ever said that? p

    That was a response to quibbles about pardon vs commutation, which specific felonies were committed, etc.
  • ZinheadZinhead Registered User Posts: 2,610 Senior Member
    edited October 2017
    Excuse me @zinhead. Commuted, not pardoned.

    Getting the facts correct is important. It is clear that you do not let facts get in the way of letting people know what you pre-conceived opinions are.

    The following is from the statement from Dean Elmendorf regarding the invitation to Chelsea Manning to be a Visiting Fellow that you posted earlier in the thread:

    https://www.hks.harvard.edu/announcements/statement-dean-elmendorf-regarding-invitation-chelsea-manning-be-visiting-fellow
    Therefore, we are withdrawing the invitation to her to serve as a Visiting Fellow—and the perceived honor that it implies to some people—while maintaining the invitation for her to spend a day at the Kennedy School and speak in the Forum. I apologize to her and to the many concerned people from whom I have heard today for not recognizing upfront the full implications of our original invitation. This decision now is not intended as a compromise between competing interest groups but as the correct way for the Kennedy School to emphasize its longstanding approach to visiting speakers while recognizing that the title of Visiting Fellow implies a certain recognition.

    The title was Visiting Fellow was taken away, and Manning's speech was never "chilled."

    You can go around saying that the sky is green, but that does not make it so.
  • Ohiodad51Ohiodad51 Registered User Posts: 2,257 Senior Member
    edited October 2017
    That was a response to quibbles about pardon vs commutation, which specific felonies were committed, etc.

    Are you seriously saying the difference between pleading guilty to treason (technically aiding the enemy under the UCMJ I think) and being convicted of making a false statement/obstruction is a quibble? If that is true, I assume you were a full throated supporter of removing Bill Clinton from office, right?

    Either way, I have no idea what point you are trying to make. If Harvard ever offered Libby a fellowship (I know, don't laugh) and a couple people made a stink/withdrew which caused Harvard to withdraw the offer, I would be ok with it. Those are the types of decisions an institution is supposed to make. It might tell you something about their priorities, but it is unquestionably the institution's right to make those calls.
  • Ohiodad51Ohiodad51 Registered User Posts: 2,257 Senior Member
    ^ Too late to edit, but I just looked it up (should have done that first, lol) and Manning did not plead to aiding the enemy, and was not convicted on that charge. She was convicted on 19 of 21 charges, including six involving espionage
Sign In or Register to comment.