Stanford University (and other universities and colleges all across the U.S.) has a problem, and it isn’t that they’ve been inviting “crass or demogogic” speakers instead of “challenging and thought-provoking” ones. The problem is that university administrators and students carry out wildly counter-factual smear campaigns against speakers they dislike, painting them as “crass or demogogic” and as “inflammatory performers” who just want to “throw bombs or stir up controversy for the sake of it,” without ever dealing with the actually “thought-provoking” points the speaker makes.
At Stanford, I took out a full-page ad in the Stanford Daily refuting some of the false charges that had been made against me, and offering evidence for the positions I have taken; not only was it ignored, but only minutes after the event began, Stanford administrators Nanci Howe and Snehal Naik engineered a walkout of the vast majority of the crowd, and subsequently refused to allow in students who actually wanted to attend the event.
You can see for yourself how “inflammatory” and “demogogic” I was at Stanford:
What Stanford has to deal with is not finding speakers who are genuinely thoughtful rather than demogogic; what Stanford has to deal with is the strong current among faculty and students to engage in Nazi Brownshirt tactics of smearing and then forcibly silencing speakers who dissent from the line they accept. If there were anyone there who understood the implications of what happened when I spoke there, that would be a huge topic of discussion on the Stanford campus today. But apparently there isn’t.
“Announcing Cardinal Conversations,” Stanford Review, January 11, 2018:
The events will feature disagreement, but not simplistic liberal-conservative duels. Speakers will be challenging and thought-provoking, but not crass or demagogic. Professor Niall Ferguson, one of the co-sponsors of the series, vociferously distinguishes it from other attempts to ignite debates about free speech, such as the Stanford College Republicans’ invitation of Robert Spencer or the Berkeley Republicans’ invitation of Milo Yiannopoulos. Cardinal Conversations is not looking to throw bombs or stir up controversy for the sake of it; speakers will be provocative thinkers, not inflammatory performers.
“Peter Thiel, Charles Murray invited to new ‘conversation’ series aimed at diversity of views,” by Holden Foreman, Stanford Daily, January 10, 2018:
Palantir founder Peter Thiel and LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman will kick off the new Cardinal Conversations speaker series on Jan. 31 with a discussion on “Technology and Politics” hosted in Hauck Auditorium.
Thiel and Hoffman’s talk is the first of four Cardinal Conversations aimed at representing a diversity of views and putting the opinions of two people in counterpoint while tackling topics ranging from inequality and populism to sexuality and politics. The series, an initiative of the University president, will be co-hosted by the Hoover Institution and the Freeman Spogli Institute over the rest of the academic year….
The roster includes speakers who have caused controversy nationally and at other universities. Murray, who has been criticized by the Southern Poverty Law Center for “using racist pseudoscience and misleading statistics,” saw his March talk at Middlebury College descend into violence as a student protest turned into physical confrontation. Professor Allison Stanger was injured while escorting him from the scene.
However, compared to the Robert Spencer talk hosted by the Stanford College Republicans earlier this school year, Ferguson said he does not anticipate similar opposition to the Jan. 31 event. Ferguson argued Cardinal Conversations has more bipartisan appeal in contrast with what he described as the more polarizing nature of the Spencer event: Thiel is an open supporter of President Donald Trump, while Hoffman opposes the administration.
“There’s obviously a concern given what events have happened on other campuses,” Ferguson said. “I think [Provost] Persis [Drell] and [President] Marc [Tessier-Lavigne] made it clear in [Notes from the Quad] that there’s a kind of clear line between protest and disruption. We’re happy if people want to express a protest, but clearly, disruptions are not the matter, and we don’t want to see that.”…
StellaSaidSo says
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is on my Top Ten list of heroes, but I do wonder about her husband. Niall Ferguson is such a pompous ass. I would cheerfully stand in line to hear Robert Spencer speak, or Milo, or Ayaan. But Niall? Pass.
revereridesagain says
Shame on Ferguson for participating in this farce. He’s spent to much time at Hah-vud, it’s rotted his brain. How veddy nice to hear that he will not be “crass”, dahlings! He is nothing but a Cambridge Clown.
StellaSaidSo says
Ferguson is co-sponsor of the series, so no doubt he will have rather a lot to say, and of course no-one will interrupt him.
Emilie Green says
Yeah, like Murray gonna get out of there un-assailed?
Not if he speaks the truth.
mortimer says
It will be interesting to see if they don’t pull another stunt against Murray. I guess Islam is the sacred cow of the Left … at the moment. The only thing that might disabuse them would be an Islamic attack close to their home … and maybe they would be able to rationalize that away too.
The Left is profoundly dishonest. How can such people teach if they are so opposed to the facts and so doctrinaire?
Stanford should be shunned by anyone who wants to do serious research.
DBM echo says
“My whole career has been one wrong answer after another as far as the left is concerned,” Murray joked.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-intellectual-grenades-of-charles-murray/article/2011097
mortimer says
Stanford U. reminds me of King Canute trying to stop the rising of the tide by commanding it.
The tide of knowledge about jihad is inconvenient to the Left, but it is unstoppable, because of the internet.
Students merely need to go on line and read the voluminous materials that are there and listen to videos by the counterjihad scholars, as well as read the ORIGINAL, PRIMARY SOURCE TEXTS of Islam in the Arabic… all on line.
The Stanford Leftist profs are BIMBOS in the matter of Islamic studies and yet, preposterously, present themselves as know-it-all experts. A cross-examination would reveal their PROFOUND IGNORANCE of Islamic teaching in less than ONE MINUTE.
Guy Forester says
The difference is, from what I have read, was why Canute did that stunt. The story was he had been hearing all sorts of flattery and understood it as such: worthless prattle intended for the benefit of the speakers, not the King. He then demonstrated that he could not order the tide to stop and demonstrated that he had no use for flattery.
Unfortunately, our schools seem to think that by pandering to the ranting and raving of the left they are educating people and producing open and enquiring minds. The result will be the exact opposite.
gravenimage says
Yes–King Canute was not delusional, as many think–instead, he was cannily proving the point of everything that mortals *can’t* control.
mortimer says
THE ESTABLISHED ORTHODOXY of Stanford U. appears to have the same stance as that of the Vatican at the beginning of the Protestant Reformation. Anyone who was suggesting people READ FOR THEMSELVES the ORIGINAL TEXTS of Christianity was per se a HERETIC.
THE ESTABLISHED ORTHODOXY of Stanford U. consider anyone who reads Islam’s source texts FOR THEMSELVES to be an evil, devil-inspired heretic.
They have not read the PRIMARY SOURCE TEXTS of Islam themselves and denounce those who have read them! Just like the medieval RCC.
Stanford U. will lose this rear-guard defense against the facts which anyone can now read on line.
Anton says
The left is now trying to take under control search engines like ‘google’. One will have to make a lot of effort to find a source or an adequate interpretation on the internet soon. That’s what is coming instead of burning of books.
Guy Forester says
Unfortunately, as we have gone digital, libraries as we know them may very well cease to exist in any useful manner. In the not so distant past, research included time spent in actual books and journal collections, often going back hundreds of years in certain libraries.
There is a wealth of info out there in out of print journals, newspapers, and books. Unfortunately, we may be entering Big Brother’s utopia that includes the “memory hole.” Electronic/digital production and dissemination has its advantages, but these documents can get disappeared in a flash. Next, the authors will get disappeared, also in a flash.
MFritz says
“provocative thinkers”… So basically only those “thinkers” spewing hatred against Western civilisation, white men, white “suppremacy” AND white male “privilege”?
eduardo odraude says
Anybody a student group wants to invite should be able to come and speak without disruption, provided the speaker is not inciting violence. The rest is giving in to those who would use force to suppress speech.
Having noted that fundamental principle, a strategic point can be suggested, since the fundamental principle will often not be observed in today’s climate. Strategically, that is, I wonder if Robert Spencer would do better if instead of speaking on his own, he found someone, anyone, to debate him on campuses. If “the other side” is represented at his presentations, if his presentations were debates, then maybe a lot of the fanatics on the other side would simmer down and behave better. Yes, I know a lot of people are afraid to debate Spencer, but surely somebody could be found to take on the challenge. Republican students seeking to invite Spencer should consider instead setting up a debate in which Spencer argues one side.
Montedoro44 says
“Thiel is an open supporter of President Donald Trump, while Hoffman opposes the administration.”
“OPEN” ??? What’s that word doing here? Here’s a microcosm of the underlying problem.
Westman says
It’s amazing that the Stanford School of Business can survive on such a communist-oriented campus. It will be interesting to watch this campus as California rapidly declines into huge deficits.
Silicon Valley has outsourced itself, sent their technology and production freely to the communist world, and parked the profits offshore.
Maximizing profits to investors no matter the consequences, handouts to illegals, excessive local and state taxation, and tolerating a homegrown drug culture is resulting in flight from CA that will turn into a torrent and cause falling real estate values.
The change to federal non-writeoff of state taxes, alone, will devastate CA’s large high-tax cities.
Will Stanford go down with the ship or rehabilitate itself as the educator of illegal and work-visa students?
Sam says
It does not matter if California goes bankrupt. They will still blame Trump for all their ills and Trump twits.
The lefties still do not blame communist Russia and China for killing millions of their people. You think they will blame their leftie administrations for the state bankruptcy?
Westman says
Nope…
Richard says
“The lefties still do not blame communist Russia”
How long have you been asleep?
Russia has not been communist for over 25 years.
When I was in Russia 4 years ago I saw the rump of the communist party demonstrating against the government in a shopping mall. They were a pathetic sight. Less than 20 of them.
Nearby there was a queue to enter the Kazan Cathedral for the visit of the Patriarch with the cross of St Andrew. The queue stretched around the block, and the next block, and the one after that….and so on. It took half an hour to get to the end of it.
Westman says
Richard, I didn’t say Russia was still communist – something it failed at, miserably. However, historically, Sam is right, they did kill off millions before the USSR breakup and that should have been a lesson for socialists who now want state control.
I imagine Sam knows that Putin has declared himself a Christian and there was a tremendous Christian resurgence and repair of neglected church buildings when the Soviet Republic failed.
gravenimage says
Not all of us in California are like this–too many are, though.
Guy Forester says
The other problem is that the newly graduated snowflakes, used to getting their way by pouting or demonstrating (often violently) will have a rude awakening in the real world with real jobs. Imagine one of these wusses getting assigned to a team project where the following are expected:
1. Work done on time to meet deadlines
2. Work along side team members that may have a different opinion than yours.
3. Research a topic for supporting data and be able to differentiate between factual data and unsubstantiated opinion.
4. Respect the opinions of others, and especially respect an authority gradient
5. Differentiate between constructive criticism and destructive negativity
6. Accept constructive criticism and learn from mistakes
Unfortunately, we cannot teach/learn everything needed to be successful in the classroom. Real world work experience helps make us what we are. I hope these products of higher education learn quickly that what was OK on campus may not work so well with one’s employer.
Andy says
Free speech offends some people
Our freedoms are being eroded by people who get offended at what “they” don’t want to hear.
Look at Christine Douglass-Williams She was fired from the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, a Canadian government agency, for daring to call attention here at Jihad Watch to the threat of jihad terror.
People have fought and died for this right in western democracies for FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!!
Just because professors and other like minded people at Stanford University (and other universities and colleges all across the U.S.) Canada, Europe, UK, has a problem with free speech doesn’t give them the right to shut other people up.
Political Correctness has to stop and we have to be able to talk about issues at hand.
I want to live in a world where people have the right to say what they want without fear of being discriminated against.
Some people like to pick and choose what they “think” should and shouldn’t be allowed on sites! Instead of debating everything, logically.
The bottom line is if you have teachers who cant tolerate free speech what are they doing in the profession of teaching and they should be fired if they won’t allow freedom of speech!
Does Free Speech Offend You?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vVohGWhMWs
Free speech making a comeback on college campuses?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFi7LrZDgYg
Andy says
Will the universities Debate what Trump allegedly said About ‘S**thole Countries
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0XajmjPtuU
Andy says
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zs-X7I7Rf8
Aron says
Stanford’s Rhetorical Thinkers!
blitz2b says
Robert,
Please send this moronic idiot a free copy of your masterpiece ” Confessions of an Islamophobe..”
I’m now wondering if these leftist Islam pandering traitors have sh!t for brains or just marshmallows for gonads…
Whether plain dumb or just cowards, Islam and it’s minions from hell still benefit from theses sellouts.
Robert Spencer says
His wife has read it.
StellaSaidSo says
I cannot imagine that Ayaan found it either ‘inflammatory’ or ‘demagogic’.
I bet it was Ferguson who thought up the pretentious title ‘Cardinal Conversations’!
gravenimage says
She has indeed. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a staunch Anti-Jihadist. I used to think the same of Niall Ferguson…
Guy Forester says
Better check to see who is funding this campus activity. Somewhere along the line Stanford admin may be concerned about losing some funding if certain speakers are allowed on campus, especially if they speak the truth.
Guy Forester says
I suspect these will be carefully moderated to prevent anyone saying anything that does not jive with current indoctrination.
Georg says
Edited for truth:
New Stanford speaker series will feature “people they agree with (nothing new),” not “people they disagree with (thoughtcriminals)” like Robert Spencer
Indiana Tom says
Speakers will be challenging and thought-provoking….such as Linda Sarsour.
This is according to the Ministry of Truth which is cleansing the campus of thought crime.
Max Publius says
So Stanford & Son University thinks countering violent jihad through intellectual debate is wrong, but debating IQ and race is a-okay.
Um, ahh, sorry, I got nothing…facepalm, headdesk.
Norger says
“As if Ministry of Thought approved speech and thought is even remotely close to actual free speech and free thought.”
Nailed it.
Matthieu Baudin says
“… The problem is that university administrators and students carry out wildly counter-factual smear campaigns against speakers they dislike, painting them as “crass or demogogic” and as “inflammatory performers” who just want to “throw bombs or stir up controversy for the sake of it,” without ever dealing with the actually “thought-provoking” points the speaker makes…”
They, like the current Pope, are answerable to no-one but themselves and have the intellectual freedom to wrestle with phantoms and pursue utopias; they also possess an unlimited store of arrogance to keep themselves focused and reserves of acolytes to sustain the great battles.
Lydia Church says
Stanford just does not want to be confronted with the facts, period.
They are not able to engage in any true analytical debates and discussions.
They are not able to reason and look at an issue from multiple angles.
Open mindedness and rational thought are also taboo for them.
They don’t want any intellectual challenges.
Because all of that would require a little necessary ingredient called….
……………………………. thinking!
gravenimage says
New Stanford speaker series will feature “provocative thinkers,” not “inflammatory performers” like Robert Spencer
……………………….
Well, hearing this from Niall Ferguson is depressing.
He is married to Anti-Jihadist Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who has suffered as much abuse as has Robert Spencer for opposing Jihad. And Ayaan Hirsi Ali has hailed Spencer for this good work:
“Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Robert Spencer ‘has outed all the tricks they use in their taqiyyah bag to disinform the public’”
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/11/ayaan-hirsi-ali-robert-spencer-has-outed-all-the-tricks-they-use-in-their-taqiyyah-bag-to-disinform-the-public
Niall Ferguson has himself written and spoken against Jihad.
I suppose this is the sort of thing that is apt to happen when good people are demonized for opposing evil. Sorry to see it from an otherwise decent man like Ferguson, though.
RodSerling says
I don’t know how well the phrase “pompous ass” applies to Niall Ferguson, but he sure looks like one in that photo. Should we blame him, the photographer, or both?
As for the debate format, I think that’s a good idea, but in the current sociopolitical climate it seems motivated at least as much by fear of leftist mob violence on campus, accusations of racism, and the resulting bad publicity, than it does by purely intellectual of educational considerations. If they genuinely want substantive debates, then they should include people like Robert Spencer and Ayaan Hirsi Ali to argue against leftists and Islam apologists. The former would surely demonstrate the lack of substance of the latter.
It can be argued that some speakers are just empty provocateurs who should not be given a platform, but anyone who says that Robert Spencer is in that category is either ignorant of his work and the important issues it deals with, or is too afraid to deal with those issues and therefore finds it easier to blame the man, or else is on the opposing side and thinks that all opposition to jihad, sharia, and Islamic supremacism is the result of ignorance and/or malice.
Hirsi Ali of course is married to Niall Ferguson. Ferguson’s rationale (paraphrased in the Stanford Daily article) for inviting provocative thinkers instead of “inflammatory” speakers is curious in that his wife would probably be excluded from this Cardinal Conversations series. Hirsi Ali was famously set to be honoured, but was then betrayed, by Brandeis. Also, Hirsi Ali gave an enthusiastic blurb of endorsement to Robert’s book Confessions of an Islamophobe. I would wonder how Ferguson sorts out these contradictions if I had time to wonder about such things.
StellaSaidSo says
Excellent post, RodSerling. No, my description of Ferguson as a ‘pompous ass’ was not based on the photo (which, I agree, supports my thesis), but on his past form, observed over time. I must confess that I was surprised when Hirsi Ali married him, because her intellect is far superior to his, and she has none of his appalling hubris. Ferguson’s disparagement of Robert is an insult not only to Robert, but also to his own wife. He seems entirely oblivious to this.
Georg says
Honestly, Robert couldn’t be further (compared with the totality of other speakers) from being an “inflammatory performer.” If it weren’t so serious it would be hilarious that they make such a flat-out absurd characterization. His manner of speech is decidedly even-keeled, although not monotone comparatively free from emotion, and utterly fact-and-subject-based… You know? Like an intellectual. It’s actually good they’d swing for the fences with such a bombastic accusation as it just goes to show the disparity between what they say to be true versus what actually is true (thus pointing out gross bias).
I’m not sure what Stanford did to Robert isn’t illegal. In another thread someone pointed at that, as Stanford receives some amount of public funding (hope I’m not conflating with another school), they are subject to laws pertaining to free speech that a strictly private institution is not. It really seems Robert and the group asking him to speak were prevented their rights to free speech and possibly free assembly, and that something similar to defamation/libel may have taken place regarding all the false accusations and disinformation preceding the [attempted] speech. But legality aside, the transgression against the academic spirit is part of what is so frightening. The whole thing was and is infuriating and a tremendously shameful act by Stanford on which they appear to be doubling down. Many Stanford grads (ie donors) chimed in voicing their disgust with Stanford and their plans to stop funding a decidedly partisan — even hateful — institution.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
Hey kids, don’t go to university. It will make you stupid (a.k.a. a closed-minded ideologue). Get yourself a solid trade or technical training. It will allow you to think for yourself.
tgusa says
Leftists cannot stomach Robert Spencer because they have no counter argument to his intellectual presentation of historical fact. Always remember, never trust leftists as the will run and hide when the going gets tough. Seriously, these leftists are already running away on US university campus. Can you imagine them when they are confronted with the real world? Leftists will be useless when the shtf.
Leftists are nothing but an anchor around all of our necks. Just keep pushing, and pushing, because in the end they are useless.
Tom says
The Nazi’s, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and every other oppressive regime or dictator, including the current Chinese and most Islamic regimes, have “approved” topics and speakers that promote the party or government line of thought and God help anyone who thinks differently.
Universities which restrict free speech and debate are nothing other than microcosmic societies that emulate all that has been proven to be disastrously dangerous to those living within them.
Go down the path of restricting free speech and debate and they are no different than all of the despots who have preceded them throughout history.
nicholas tesdorf says
Robert Spence is eminently a “provocative thinkers,” and he is certainly not an “inflammatory performers”. Stanford obviously just wants to hear from people who will parrot their false and misleading opinion of what Islam is like. I have been studying Robert Spencers Works for two years and have seen no sign of inflammatory performance. Robert Spencer is erudite and amusing.
Richie says
The left practices group think and tends to throw violent riots whenever a conservative speaks on a college campus. Leftism has a Soviet style block mentality- the idea of anyone presenting ideas they don’t agree with is tantamount to heresy. Look whet happened when Ben Shapiro gave a speech at UCLA, Leftists set fires and destroyed property. Any professor who is exposed as possessing conservative views, even in private runs the risk of being subjected to threats of physical violence, and job loss.
Richie says
also bare in mind antisemitism is rife on the left and permeates leftist college campuses. They see Muslims as allies in their shared hatred of the US, Jews and Christians. It doesn’t occur to the dim witted leftist that Muslims would just as easily kill them. Leftist is a cult of narcissism hence leftists gays who support Islam you couldn’t care less about gays being executed in iran. The leftist cares only about themselves
Green Infidel says
Sad truth is, that in the current climate, one may need to separate themselves from “controversial” authors like Robert, in order to be able to remain part of the mainstream, and communicate to the masses?
Niall Ferguson has written a lot in the past about western civilisation from a non-PC perspective, and was highly critical of the Arab spring, for which he took a lot of flak at the time. And he’s married to Ayaan Hirsi Ali… do not write him off just yet.