In this political climate, and with new open carry rules here, who can guarantee this will be peaceful.
1 Like
Pay to speak is a way to control who speaks.
1 Like
Thatâs a bigger / different issue and you can make that statement about any person and any where.
2 Likes
Cancel ideas? I donât think this is what is being suggested here.
Current and prospective students, parents, and faculty can decide whether they want to be affiliated with a university that hosts such a group and whether or not they feel safe and/or intimidated by such a group.
3 Likes
Some people are being too black and white here. And some are conflating a business choosing not to host a conference with legal discrimination which applies to a very clearly defined set of protected classes. Itâs completely appropriate for a science university to choose not to host a conference of people who are expressly denying science. The standard for a private business hosting a conference for a fee isnât the same as the standard for legal expression of free speech on public grounds. Private venues decline to host controversial events that donât involve protected classes all the time. Georgia Tech had every opportunity to do so and didnât. And given itâs part of a non-profit Foundation, itâs completely appropriate to suggest that it reflects on them. They could be fine with that, and thatâs their right.
8 Likes
Several decades ago I sponsored a visit by a Northwestern Prof. named Arthur Butz to my college campus. Professor Butz was a âleading authorityâ and one of the loudest voices amongst those denying the Holocaust took place.
Having lost family members during the Holocaust I clearly found his views repugnant, immoral and of course factually incorrect.
That is exactly why I encouraged him to take the stage and âdebateâ his âfindingsâ in a public forum with a representative of the Ellie Wiesel Foundation. This event was met initially with protests and anger but to the credit of members of the administration and a very influential professor who was a survivor it was allowed to proceed as students were reminded that part of never forgetting is actively combating through raising awareness those that would seek to ignore or obfuscate.
I suspect I completely disagree with the views of those scheduled to speak at G Tech and for precisely that reason I encourage them to be provided a public venue where their views can be âdisinfectedâ by their transparency.
10 Likes
deleted
A great example to encourage.
I applaud your bringing Arthur Butz to campus for a public debate. However, there is no indication that GT invited this group for academic or public discourse, let alone debate. Rather, this group sought a venue for its event and GT is willing to take their money.
3 Likes
The risk of violence wonât come from the conference participants. Just as the security costs for those cancelled speakers didnât come from those who wanted to attend the event.
1 Like
I am pragmatic in that I am confident these people will find a place to congregate and share their views. The more high profile or public the better as it allows for scrutiny and rebuttal. Pushing people underground only allows them to claim victimhood and or be provided a veil of anonymity.
Just my 2 cents
1 Like
And Deborah Lipstadt has hosted similar discussions at Emory, @Catcherinthetoast. But in this case it isnât about an invited speaker, its about a fringe organization renting college space to hold a rally with 2 dozen or so speakers with a variety of conspiracy theory debunked trash, charging $199-499 a ticket. Apples and oranges. What you did was laudable. This - not so much.
2 Likes
The more outlandish the position the easier it should be to refute. Not sure why there is such a fuss over this.
3 Likes
Security costs are passed along to conference organizers. Same with costs, for example, for city police protecting a permitted-protest.
There have been numerous flags on this thread and debate is taking over. As you are probably all aware, debate is not allowed as per Forum Rules.
Edit:
Iâve reopened the thread. Please do not engage in debate. You can respond to someone, but do not call out other users in a way that is essentially an invitation to provoke or rebut. If you reply to a particular user more than once, itâs probably indicative that itâs time to move the conversation forward.
2 Likes
I certainly viewed those that denied the Holocaust took place to be fringe and their views to be debunked trash. So the apples and oranges difference would be that these trash merchants werenât invited by the school.
I strongly suspect the outcry and protestation would be even louder if they had been invited by the school versus being paying customers.
Hopefully this is viewed as respectful discussion versus debate as I am expressing a personal opinion (not previously stated) not refuting someone elseâs.
The difference I see is that this conference is just that- a large (??) gathering of probably like-minded people coming to hear 24 or so various fringe topics, marketed as a âsummitâ. I am more hopeful that focus this weekend will be on celebrations and of the 60,000 or so runners who will run the Peachtree road race tomorrow. The bottom line that I believe some are trying to clarify (and I will move on as we have dinner plans shortly) is that this is about the optics for Ga Tech. As some have clearly stated, this âsummitâ could be held anywhere. It doesnât need to be held in one of Techâs facilities . Thanks for your fascinating posts, @Catcherinthetoast
2 Likes
I am not sure what defines a fringe, but an Axios poll (Axios is decidedly not a right wing entity so as to distrust their polling) finds that more than 40% of the respondents agree with the premise of the people congregating at GT. More than 40% in US do not believe Biden legitimately won election â poll | US Capitol attack | The Guardian
If I have to guess Iâd say the percentage would be higher in Georgia
2 Likes