<p>I apologize for being slow to respond, but I had to take care of expanding a division.</p>
<p>After having read the comments, I do think that the initial issue here is, as Ephman said, the conflation of issues. But, that is not the fundamental point that has been absorbed into the public arena re the meeting I commented on - the issues of behavior and administration reaction are at the forefront.</p>
<p>Personally, I do my darnedest not to conflate issues, and it is a pet peeve of mine when that is done because it makes no sense / headway in solving issues that are vastly different in scope and in their solutions. The point of my one post was it was the behavior of the students who took over the meeting was the big negative, and I stated why I thought as much. I never addressed the intended substance of the meeting, as that was not my post’s purpose. Nothing happening at my alma mater had anything to do with the specific behavior exhibited by those students and the in-action of the admin - zilch. And to say that I am in “a glass house” on the issue because of something different happening at my alma mater, well, still strikes me as cognitive dissonance because they have nothing to do with each other. An issue on one campus does not somehow negate one’s opinion on a different issue on another campus. Re-read my post, I addressed very specific behavior at a meeting, which has nothing to do with anything at Amherst, which is a different issue, different problem, different solution needed and different reasoning required to get resolved.</p>
<p>I am not too sure how my comments got construed as calling anyone closed-minded. Hopefully, my paragraph above explains my position. If it does not, then we have to agree to disagree about what constitutes being close-minded and not debating. I address below what I view as close-minded.</p>
<p>I surmise, based on all articles I read, that it was liberal students who exhibited the “interesting” behavior. In my opinion, it is way more close-minded for the students who disrupted the meeting to think their issue is more important than the intended issue of the meeting. (@hopebrinn, thanks for the clarification, but your need to clarify proves the point of my very first post on the issue - the behavior and overall tenor of the meeting totally overshadowed the actual intent of the meeting or anything discussed.) </p>
<p>Last time I checked, it looks like liberal students are eating each other alive as to whose agenda is more important, so not much for me to say there for it has never crossed my mind to clap someone down, try to shut them up, or censor what they say - doing such strikes me as the most close-minded of all because it illustrates one has chosen not even to listen to and properly debate the other side(s). </p>
<p>Having discussed this issue with many grads from top schools, I can say no one is discussing the intended issues, it is the shout-down behavior of the students coupled with in-action (and subsequent caving to demands) of the admin being discussed. And, no one is saying to Harvard people that because they had a cheating scandal that they cannot comment because they live in a glass house - see the problem with the glass house argument - it solves nothing and advances nothing. And the three Harvard people I have talked to had some engaging comments, to which I respectfully listened. Ironically, they are liberal and totally disgusted by the students’ behavior and how, as one put it, liberal students today “conflate” tolerance, phobias and acceptance. It seems that today’s liberal student does not realize it is possible to be totally against something for constructive, empirical and / or religious reasons without being intolerant or mean. Acceptance (and non-acceptance) and agreement (and disagreement) are different realms of reasoning that do not automatically have nefarious motives, but these philosophical differences do not seem to exist for many students. It just seems if one says he disagrees with a liberal cause (even with alternative supporting data in tow), then one must be intolerant or phobic, which is often not the case - contrary evidence to the liberal position be damned. Such an approach illogically dismisses the fact that other, equally valid and just as strongly supported opinions / ideas / theories do exist. Swarthmore students even protested one of their alumni, Robert Zoelick, from speaking at graduation. What is more close-minded and intolerant than not even listening? </p>
<p>Here is a column by a top scholar on the issue re the meeting. Agree or disagree with him, as you wish; however, to me, his point is salient and has a connecting historical perspective.</p>
<p>[Wimps</a> Versus Barbarians - Thomas Sowell - Page full](<a href=“http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2013/05/21/wimps-versus-barbarians-n1601497/page/full]Wimps”>http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2013/05/21/wimps-versus-barbarians-n1601497/page/full)</p>
<p>Again, thank you all for your patience in my reply.</p>