<p>one of the problems here is the conflation of so many different issues. To me, the biggest problem by far is sexual assaults and how the administration responds. This is a very complicated issue and one that many colleges, not just Swarthmore, are now belatedly giving more careful thought to. Unfortunately, when what appears to be a radical environmental group storms the castle and shouts everyone else down, what should have been the focus gets lost in their rancor. Then to toss every other potential campus issue under the sun in, the usual list of isms (not to minimize these, although on many college campuses, the emphasis on them is disproportionate relative to other campus issues), just muddles things further. I wasn’t at the meeting of course and so I don’t have a full picture of how things went down, and why. But what I saw of Hope’s testimony was compelling, thoughtful, and seemingly should have been the focus of the meeting and its aftermath. Instead, another group hijacked the attention away via tactics that basically aimed to stifle, not provoke, debate, about an entirely different topic. Maybe I’m misunderstanding what happened, but that is the best I can ascertain. I think people (including the Swarthmore student who wrote a very compelling editorial, so it isn’t like this is Amherst and Williams folks who are raising this issue in the first instance, anything but) were taken aback by that, and unfortunately, it overshadowed some more timely, importantly, and appropriately-articulated concerns that instead SHOULD have been the focus. </p>
<p>I will respond to one other thing falconflyer said (because we are otherwise generally in agreement). While a group of liberals on the Swarthmore campus clearly tried to stifle debate on at least one topic, and I’d even grant that on many college campuses, this is far more of a problem suffered by the right than the left (for one obvious reason – there are simply very few conservative voices represented in academia, in academic settings where the numbers are more balanced, it’s just not in issue), in society at large, outside of academia, the bigger problem – by far – comes from the right, which unfortunately has been taken over more and more by angry zealots who would rather shout over and bully their opponents rather than engage in constructive dialogue – and certainly have ZERO interest in fair examination of scientific evidence on ANY issue. I’m talking about the likes of Chris Christie, Louis Gomert, Peter King, Steve King, Todd Akin, Michelle Bachmann, Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, Allen West, Anne Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, I could go on and on and on, but bullying and shouting down of opponents, and/or disregard for basic scientific evidence and uncritically embracing ignorant positions, while a problem on both sides, is undoubtedly far more favored by, increasingly, what have become the leading national voices of the GOP. And it’s particularly ironic that falconflyer uses global warming as his/her example, because to me, that is example 1A of conservative disinterest in open-minded inquiry. There is an overwhelming scientific consensus about global warming that is ignored / derided by the vast majority of conservatives, simply because it does not fit into their preferred narrative. They simply don’t care what the correct answer is, only seeking evidence which suits preexisting beliefs. Similar to evolution, which incredibly and increasingly is coming under attack in favor of creationism in the most conservative pockets of the country. If these folks thought gravity was contradicted by something in the Bible and/or was harmful to the interests of energy companies, you can bet there would be a movement for a “fair and balanced” presentation of opposing viewpoints to the theory of gravity in public schools. It would be laughable if it wasn’t so scary that a major political party favors promoting ignorance in our educational system. </p>
<p>If you want to attack liberals as close-minded and disinterested in debate, falconflyer, I suggest you stick to college campuses where you do actually have an argument … because once you get outside of the college setting, that narrative completely flips, and those that have no interest in an honest and open-minded airing of views, and in particularly, of views relating to scientific inquiry that may produce results that don’t square with Biblical “truths” or protection of energy companies, are ignored and/or shouted down, consistently, by the right wing. You simply can’t compare, in this regard, the leading voices on the left (the Clintons, Obamas, Maddow, Jon Stewart, and so on) and the types of people that have, sadly, taken over the GOP.</p>