<p>T26E4,</p>
<p>There was no panel. It was only Ray Kelly. I agree that if there were a panel of people he should be paid in line with everyone else but he was the only person invited for that session - and while I agree that honoraria are necessary to get high profile speakers, I also support the idea that the university need not promote anyone and everything. That’s not suppression of free speech - that’s branding.</p>
<p>As fireandrain (and many in opposition of Kelly’s talk) have said. It’s one thing to include a multitude of views on a panel debate/discussion, it’s another thing to invite one person to give a lecture.</p>
<p>I have seen criticism of the fact that the protests were so delayed - and I fully agree with that. From what I’ve gathered, all of this started in the last few days whereas the fist announcement of his selection was months ago.</p>
<p>I think discussion around this event needs to separate the issues. 1st is the issue of whether or not Kelly should have been invited in the context that he was. 2nd is the issue of the response. I think the 2nd one is pretty straight forward, and I disagree with what happened not out of principle but out of the fact that I think protesting in an event like that does more harm than good for the cause.</p>
<p>With regard to the issue of whether Kelly deserved an invite - maybe it’s because I’m more scientist than policy-ist but I do not believe all ideas deserve an equal platform. No one has answered yet whether Brown should invite neo-nazi (<a href=“http://www.nsm88.org/faqs/frequently%20asked%20questions%20about%20national%20socialism.pdf[/url]”>http://www.nsm88.org/faqs/frequently%20asked%20questions%20about%20national%20socialism.pdf</a>) or westboro baptist leadership ([About</a> Westboro Baptist Church](<a href=“http://www.godhatesfags.com/wbcinfo/aboutwbc.html]About”>http://www.godhatesfags.com/wbcinfo/aboutwbc.html)) to discuss their plans for how to improve society. If stop and frisk weren’t deemed unconstitutional, then I do think it would warrant discussion but it was deemed illegal ([A</a> Federal Court Holds New York Stop-and-Frisk Policy Unconstitutional in Floyd v. City of New York | Sherry F. Colb | Verdict | Legal Analysis and Commentary from Justia](<a href=“http://verdict.justia.com/2013/08/21/a-federal-court-holds-new-york-stop-and-frisk-policy-unconstitutional-in-floyd-v-city-of-new-york]A”>A Federal Court Holds New York Stop-and-Frisk Policy Unconstitutional in Floyd v. City of New York | Sherry F. Colb | Verdict | Legal Analysis and Commentary from Justia)) and the data regarding its effectiveness is questionable at best ([Cory</a> Booker Opens Stop-And-Frisk Data To The Public. Here?s Why It Might Help. | TechCrunch](<a href=“http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/27/corybooker-opens-stop-and-frisk-data-to-the-public-heres-why-it-might-help/]Cory”>Cory Booker Opens Stop-And-Frisk Data To The Public. Here's Why It Might Help. | TechCrunch)) so it has moved into the same realm in my mind as homeopathy or vaccine/autism link. It’s bad “science” and promoting it as good science is bad. This is why - while I still disagree with the concept of protesting inside the speech - I don’t have any qualms about the desire to keep Kelly off campus and I believe the reason most people who think the protesting should never have happened or that canceling his invite would have been suppression of free speech don’t really believe in promoting everything, but just haven’t had their threshold crossed by stop and frisk.</p>
<p>And stop and frisk isn’t Kelly’s only claim to infamy: <a href=“http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/inside-the-nypds-muslim-spying-program-20130906[/url]”>http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/inside-the-nypds-muslim-spying-program-20130906</a></p>