The College Republicans at Saint Louis University say school officials blocked their efforts to have David Horowitz speak on campus during October. The university says it did not ban his talk but wanted to make sure his views on Islam and terrorism were balanced with other views.
Author and activist David Horowitz was invited to speak at Saint Louis University by the SLU College Republicans and Young America’s Foundation on Oct. 13. SLU officials, however, had problems with the subject matter of Horowitz’s proposed speech, entitled “An Evening with David Horowitz: Islamo-Fascism Awareness and Civil Rights.”
Today’s Inside Higher Ed covers Saint Louis University’s decision to block David Horowitz from delivering an address called “Islamo-Fascism Awareness and Civil Rights.” Apparently, the university believed the program as planned was “attacking another faith” and could cause “derision” on campus (whatever that means).
In a 3-part series of blog posts, liberal academic Stanley Fish stresses the difference between education and indoctrination in university classrooms, and advocates for the former.
David Horowitz and I rarely agree on anything. But we are in complete harmony on one point: it’s absolutely wrong for St. Louis University (SLU) officials to ban him from speaking on campus.
Fourteen Columbia professors are protesting the university’s apparent decision to award tenure to Joseph A. Massad, a controversial anti-Israel professor of Arab studies.
A culture of fear appears to be chilling expression at Bucknell University, where even the student newspaper fears a libel lawsuit from Associate Dean of Students Gerald W. Commerford if it were to print a critical advertisement from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE).
Professor Fired, Escorted from Campus by Police over Mysterious ‘Sexual Harassment’ Charge Two Days after Complaining about Defects in Policy
A professor who objected to a sexual harassment code finds himself facing mysterious charges.
Conservatives should applaud Stanley Fish for claiming that academic judgment exists separately from political judgment.