<p>The question and answer session only happened as a result of the protests. The initial event was a lecture on proactive policing by Ray Kelly.</p>
<p>I acknowledge that it is now no longer constitutional and does open itself up for debate. I still disagree that the university has an obligation.</p>
<p>Of course the majority of people want to stop and frisk people who match the description of a criminal on the loose - but that’s not how stop and frisk is being used - and in fact, that’s what the overturned ruling was. Not that the entire concept of stop and frisk is wrong, but that the NYC use of Stop and Frisk was wrong.</p>
<p>Regardless, you and I can debate whether or not stop and frisk is valid but that has nothing to do with the overall point you’re making (unless I misunderstood your overall point). </p>
<p>If your overall point is that stop and frisk is valid and worthy of debate - I personally agree that it’s worth a debate - which is not what the session was originally scheduled to be (which is why I didn’t have a problem with people protesting it outside the event) and is not what I thought your initial post was really about. </p>
<p>My understanding of your initial point is that no one should be able to silence another’s views and that the university has an obligation to bring all voices to campus, regardless of how juxtaposed they are to the university’s populace - I still disagree and the potential validity of stop and frisk really has nothing to do with this. Should the neo-nazis be invited for a session on “the evils of race mixing” what about westboro baptist on “AIDS as a means to control the gay population?” Should the biology department invite Jenny McCarthy for a session on the dangers of vaccination?</p>
<p>If your point is the former, then ideologically you align with the protestors with regard to the idea that certain view points do not warrant a stage - you just have a different opinion on what view points do and don’t warrant a stage. There’s nothing wrong with that - but let’s call a spade a spade and admit this is not about silencing free speech.</p>