<p>I’m all for intellectual diversity and having more conservative speakers on campus but this guy is seriously a giant tool</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.browndailyherald.com/news/2005/03/14/CampusNews/Conservative.Author.Dsouza.Dartmouth.Grad.To.Speak.Tonight-893606.shtml[/url]”>http://www.browndailyherald.com/news/2005/03/14/CampusNews/Conservative.Author.Dsouza.Dartmouth.Grad.To.Speak.Tonight-893606.shtml</a></p>
<p>The second half of your statement contradicts the first.</p>
<p>hah, I find it very telling about conservatives that he is against affirmative action while he probably got admitted as an urm</p>
<p>Very telling about conservatives? Why can't a minority student be against affirmative action?</p>
<p>Joey</p>
<p>Ahh, Dinesh D'Souza...I'm kinda ashamed that he went to my school actually. I read somewhere else I think that he freely admits that he probably got in thanks to affirmative action but that it won't affect his position on it.</p>
<p>actually, i don't think it does. there's nothing wrong with the fact that his views are conservative. what is questionable are the particularly inflammatory approaches he takes and i wonder what value these approaches really have to a productive dialogue. for example, he argues for the superiority of western values and claims that colonialism is beneficial because it instills superior western values. i mean, c'mon. what year is this again?</p>
<p>also, he's not a URM (asians in general aren't considered under-represented)</p>
<p>It's not 1570? Crap.</p>
<p>Not 1570? Oh, fudge, I guess I'd better go change.</p>
<p>What is wrong with having a speaker with unique (and, gasp, conservative) ideas on a college campus? If it was Howard Dean no one would be fazed.</p>
<p>Duh, because conservatives aren't people.</p>
<p>Conservatives are one thing. If what dcircle said about colonialism is true, then it's more of a western-supremist, anti-other culture speaker, which is completely different. Hamilton College recently cancelled that guy who compared 9/11 victims to Nazis, plus he was fired. Obviously, there's something bad about having different views, particularly inflammatory ones like those.</p>
<p>Hm... I see where someone could disagree, but I don't see why he's psychotic.</p>
<p>He said that colonialism degraded the peoples who were overtaken by colonists, but that western democracy ultimately helped them.</p>
<p>So what?</p>
<p>Oh, well, I don't really see much wrong with that. I don't know anything about this guy in particular. I was just going off of what was said previously.</p>
<p>I'm not ****ed or anything.</p>
<p>It just seems to me that there are far better people for dcircle to call hacks.</p>
<p>What's wrong with a conservative speaker now and again? Nobody was upset when propogandist and resident unkempt tub Michael Moore was on a whirlwind college tour this fall.</p>
<p>
[quote]
plus he was fired
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have been out of the country for a week recently so I may have missed it, but to my knowledge Ward Churchhill kept his job despite the fact that he lied on his application to get it.</p>
<p>He should be fired, but not for his views - which tenure should protect.</p>
<p>again, nothing wrong with a conservative speaker.
also, dinesh d'souza is several notches above reactionary talking heads like michael moore and anne coulter. he's an academician at the hoover institute with impressive credentials.
but what concerns me is the potential for his rhetoric to reinforce potentially deleterious preconceptions and stereotypes. for example, how do his views of colonialism apply to the current U.S. occupation of Iraq? i would argue that it is precisely his viewpoint that justified the audacity of selling the war in Iraq on ideological grounds--freedom, liberty and all the rest. yet, rather than seeing this as a benefit, much of the Arab world saw it as a brazen imposition. the result? an increase in anti-american sentiment. he can think whatever he wants but few people from former-colonies would embrace the colonists, even generations after the fact. to assume otherwise or to ignore this fact is irreponsible.</p>
<p>i'd also love to know whether or not he supports a two-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, as most reasonable people do (both conservative and liberal). how does his colonialist views apply here?</p>
<p>I don't know,</p>
<p>I haven't read his books, but i heard him on WNYC (NPR=liberal) his position is provocative in some/many [d]circles, but much of what he said, to me, seemed worthy of discussion. </p>
<p>He seems to look particularly at India and its British modeled and founded university system amongst other institutions common to democratic states. He also indicated that he believed India is the largest democracy on earth largely due to the British institutional influence; however, he still acknowledged many of the atrocities committed by the British during the same period.</p>
<p>Many of the people calling in on the radio, mostly of Indian/Pakistani descent, seemed to agree with his position (on Indian democracy/university) with only a few exceptions (the host requested that only immigrants from colonialized countries call in). I was shocked, really.</p>
<p>I don't imagine I will ultimately agree with his position (though I can't say I fully understand or know it) but it seemed to be a timely discussion. I think, as long as people politely allow him to speak at Brown (by no means a given) it will probably be an intellectually engaging speech/discussion.</p>
<p>Did any of you actually attend the speech?</p>
<p>I did, and honestly, Mr. D'Souza presented himself well and was very articulate. Not only this, but he was also humorous and answered questions from some confrontational students good-naturedly. Even the super-biased Brown Daily Herald gave him credit for being an excellent speaker (in contrast to Seymour Hersh). </p>
<p>Dcircle, you cite Mr. D'Souzas inflammatory rhetoric but have you listened to him speak? Where were you when Howard Dean came to campus? Did you ever point out how his speech lacked anything intellectual and became a Bush-bashing lecture for starry-eyed liberals? Or how about any number of liberal speakers who don't have the intelligence to carry on a meaningful discussion? You are the first to jump on conservatives for their beliefs but you fail to see the shortcomings of liberal speakers at Brown as well. If you attended the lecture, what about the questioner from "ARA: Anti-Racist Action" who grabbed the microphone, delivered his own mini-lecture and labelled D'Souza as a white supremacist while he posed his question. A WASP calling a diminutive Indian man a white supremacist? Even my liberal friends here concede that that was far more inflammatory than anything Dinesh said that night. The only thing uncouth about the whole thing was several rude questioners. </p>
<p>About colonialism, Dinesh D'Souza made a very interesting point: Did the British intend to make Indians' lives better? No. Did his grandparents like the British? Absolutely not- they despised them. But would Dinesh be where he is today (noted scholar and advisor, ivy league degree) if the British had never established schools, roads, businesses, trade, or a gateway to the west? His answer: probably not. So you see, he doesn't justify colonialism as being good -intentioned, but as having positive benefits in the long run. </p>
<p>Dcircle, it seems to me like the only way you would be happy with a conservative speaker would be if they didn't have strong views of their own. How do lukewarm statements get any discussion going? It is important to have stimulating dialogue on both sides of the political spectrum. I'm just asking you to be more open-minded. </p>
<p>Conservatives, don't feel discouraged- apply to Brown because it will force you to question your beliefs and may ultimately strengthen them. Best of luck!</p>
<p>"reactionary talking heads like michael moore and anne coulter."</p>
<p>Michael Moore is not a reactionary. Reactionary means extremely conservative, opposed to progress or liberalism. Oh, and Ann Coulter is out of her mind. She's fabulously loony. It's amazing. I'm not a real friend of Michael Moore, but he is at least 10 steps above Ann Coulter, who may, in fact, be Satan him/herself.</p>