“Why colleges have to be in the middle of these issues? Why can’t they just teach subject matter?”
The answer to that is colleges are supposed to be there, not as a trade school teaching a trade, they are supposed to be places where new ideas are tested out, where things are researched and discussed, colleges are not supposed to be a continuation of high school. It is why professors do research and are encouraged to publish, it is why university science professors do research, or engineering professors, these aren’t bastions of the trade equivalent of the 3r’s. One of the things required when territories became states was to have an agricultural college (and I believe a mining college in some places), with the idea of advancing the art of agriculture which then was cutting edge important, they didn’t want farmers using the same techniques they had since the paleolithic age, they wanted knowledge to go forward.
Personally I usually hear complaints about the ‘drivel’ universities and colleges come up with (and some of it quite honestly I would agree with them about it, but that is another story) from people who are conservative, yet when I point out to them that conservative ideas in things like supply side economics, or in economic liberalization (associated with lessening regulation and such) came out of universities originally, within the economic sphere much of the conservative agenda came from places like the University of Chicago, so it isn’t just ‘liberal propoganda’ or whatnot.
I am troubled when I hear about violence against those they disagree with and I think that speakers I find vile, whether it is Milo what’s his face, or anyone from the University of Chicago economics department, or for that matter anti porn feminists on the other end, should be invited to speak, I had more than a few controversial speakers in when I was in college on both ends of things. Those opposed should use that as an opportunity to protest, if the person does a Q and A challenge their ideas, point out their lies, write op eds in the local paper or school paper, post stuff on social media teaching about how stupid the speaker is (in their eyes). When it comes to ideas and beliefs, I think that someone repugnant should be allowed to speak, it should be encouraged to have challenging speakers, but I also think kids have the right to make their voices heard, too, both for and against.
I also think their is disingenuousness over pointing out things like Murray at Middlebury, or Milo poo poo face at Berkeley, as examples of ‘liberal censorship of conservative ideas’, when conservative schools don’t exactly bring in people from the other side (talking here religious schools and the like). I think any school worth its salt should be bringing in people who challenge ideas, and also encouraging people to argue back, too.
