Excellent piece! It’s also refreshing to read independent journalism (which is sorely lacking at other papers on campus.) My guess is there are many people on campus who have opinions outside the progressive bubble and hopefully you will inspire greater dialogue with less fear.
Great post ! I graduated from Yale in 1996 back when we still talked and debated instead of screaming and engaging in violence. Praying for your safety and grateful for your principled leadership.
Great piece Jessica Weinfeld and thank you for your courage to put yourself out there at Columbia. Intellectual diversity and free speech, civil debate, dialogue and disagreement once were hallmarks of my alma mater and ought to be part of the restoration of the University’s mission.
I liked this article and have a lot of respect for students like yourself openly disagreeing with orthodoxy on campus, but my one disagreement is with the idea that professors and others, in their own time, should not be able to describe the current administration as authoritarian, etc, since they have a right to voice their opinions in the same way that you have a right to voice yours. (That's not to say that those characterizations are always totally helpful or accurate, just that people should not stay silent if/when the administration does act in authoritarian ways.)
I'm not sure what you're hoping to accomplish with this comment. Your tone comes across as venting anger rather than sincerely trying to persuade, which is your right to do, but I just don't get the point of writing and posting it since I sincerely doubt anyone on the right would change their mind after reading it. Also, re: "There's no debate on who's ideas are better..." it's likely that people who hold positions that you find abhorrent 1) have a different understanding of the relevant facts (e.g. might think that you are misinterpreting Kirk's comments, ignoring relevant history, etc) or 2) might not be familiar with the information that you have (e.g. knowledge of specific comments, historical incidents, etc). By debating them (or engaging in dialogue), you can ensure that your own understanding of an issue or situation is accurate, and you can share your own knowledge and potentially change their mind (or the mind of anyone else paying attention to the conversation). At least that's my argument in favor of discussion. (Plus, it should be very easy to convince them or at least to win the debate if their ideas are indeed completely unsubstantiated and indefensible.)
Excellent piece! It’s also refreshing to read independent journalism (which is sorely lacking at other papers on campus.) My guess is there are many people on campus who have opinions outside the progressive bubble and hopefully you will inspire greater dialogue with less fear.
Great post ! I graduated from Yale in 1996 back when we still talked and debated instead of screaming and engaging in violence. Praying for your safety and grateful for your principled leadership.
Great piece Jessica Weinfeld and thank you for your courage to put yourself out there at Columbia. Intellectual diversity and free speech, civil debate, dialogue and disagreement once were hallmarks of my alma mater and ought to be part of the restoration of the University’s mission.
Such a good man you need to point a gun at liberals and say “clap for him or you die”
charlie kirk founded trumps hitler youth
Byebye nazi
I liked this article and have a lot of respect for students like yourself openly disagreeing with orthodoxy on campus, but my one disagreement is with the idea that professors and others, in their own time, should not be able to describe the current administration as authoritarian, etc, since they have a right to voice their opinions in the same way that you have a right to voice yours. (That's not to say that those characterizations are always totally helpful or accurate, just that people should not stay silent if/when the administration does act in authoritarian ways.)
I'm not sure what you're hoping to accomplish with this comment. Your tone comes across as venting anger rather than sincerely trying to persuade, which is your right to do, but I just don't get the point of writing and posting it since I sincerely doubt anyone on the right would change their mind after reading it. Also, re: "There's no debate on who's ideas are better..." it's likely that people who hold positions that you find abhorrent 1) have a different understanding of the relevant facts (e.g. might think that you are misinterpreting Kirk's comments, ignoring relevant history, etc) or 2) might not be familiar with the information that you have (e.g. knowledge of specific comments, historical incidents, etc). By debating them (or engaging in dialogue), you can ensure that your own understanding of an issue or situation is accurate, and you can share your own knowledge and potentially change their mind (or the mind of anyone else paying attention to the conversation). At least that's my argument in favor of discussion. (Plus, it should be very easy to convince them or at least to win the debate if their ideas are indeed completely unsubstantiated and indefensible.)
"e.g. might think that you are misinterpreting Kirk's comments"
Kirk said completely abhorrent and racist things. On video.
Anyone who thinks Kirk's ideas are good is either 1) racist or 2) racist and sexist.
There's no debate about who's ideas are better. Everyone, even the racist Charlie Kirk fans, know that racism is indefensible.