Yuku free message boards

According to the Chronicle, this whole controversy is the consequence of an unemployed former shock radio personality trying to get some publicity for herself. Should anyone with an email list left over from a failed attempt at a carer in talk radio, or okay anyone with an email list, be allowed to bully a college into abiding by a bully's own crackpot ideas of what should be discussed and what should be censored from discussion in that college? No and I mean hell no!

The "grain" is a metaphor status quo and for conservatism in so far as it is a principle of conservatism that change and innovation are dangerous and too risky to be engaged upon without the most extreme caution and practically almost never. Going against the grain also refers to civic action, citizenship, the public sphere. Homeschooling is probably not the best example right wing extremism in this case not just because not all homeschoolers are only either hippies or white supremacists, but primarily because abandoning the public sphere and the idea that communities have a responsibility and capacity to self-govern and educate the youth by removing one's own child from public and private schools is not the same as waging a public campaign to dismantle all schools entirely. As scholars and political activists are not empty transitive units, the notion that voices are either right or left and one can balance has no meaning. That said, right wing extremists, such as those that have advocated dismantling the welfare system and that this modern democracy would be better off without a middle class, have appeared at and are frequently represented at the College. The suggestion that the campus has not heard any anti-government messages from the far right is far from reality. And really - if "it looks awful" and all the other colleges have banned Ayers (or anyone else) - that's it! You have identified the current "grain." For what it's worth, Ayers was speaking recently at the University of Michigan.

But really, who ought to be allowed under any circumstances, regardless of how a speaker series is titled, to speak at St. Mary's? Where do we draw the line? By the line I mean let's consider adopting a universal and fair standard of inclusion and exclusion for future speakers at St. Mary's.

Now, as he is currently a marginal and controversial choice, let's take the example of Bill Ayers and let's see which side of Ayers we ought to set a standard for inclusion and exclusion for future speakers at St. Mary's. The out-of-work radio personality that is promoting this controversy to re-inflate her former brand is baiting anyone defending the College's privilege and right to host speakers of its own choosing to defend not the First Amendment (which she must dearly love), not the core principles of the Liberal Arts mission (don't kill Socrates next time), but her own characterization of William Ayers as the "terrorist mastermind." If, alternatively, we choose to inform our decision and our standard by objective facts rather than the opinion of an entertainment industry blowhard, and we probably should, let's consider the facts of the case of Ayers. The fact is that Ayers was was never convicted of a felony, but only three misdemeanors. The Weather Underground bombings killed people, Ayers is only linked to those bombings by his association with other members who were. Ayers' targets were buildings of regime institutions that supported the war and domestic spying and intimidation and libel against US citizens (not planeloads of tourists, or schools, or wedding receptions full of innocent partygoers) but he did advocate violence with the obvious potential of killing people. This is not a defense of Ayers, only the facts. If it were a defense one would have to include that the crimes were committed over 30 years ago and that Ayers of today has long since paid his debt to society; is a first citizen of a great American city; and, is an influential education scholar and Doctor of Philosophy; and et cetera. Let's just consider the bad Ayers of years ago in considering our standard.

If we set the standard of future possible speakers to exclude Bill Ayers on the actual grounds of what has done what would be the consequences for St. Mary's? Since we can't know the future let's consider whom from history such a standard, let's call it "The Ayers Standard" would most likely exclude. Certainly Nelson Mandela, Malcolm X, and probably Alice Paul, Tom Hayden, Rosa Parks, every Freedom Rider and Martin Luther King Jr. for whom we now hold a national holiday would have to be excluded with prejudice. Every founder that advocated war against England would have to be excluded and especially the Adamses, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and Thomas Paine. Jack London, Harry Bridges, Ceasar Chavez, RFK, and certainly Mario Savio would not be allowed to speak on our campus. Father Roy Bourgeois and pretty much any other priest or scholar that was arrested for unlawful assembly or public obstruction for protesting nuclear weapons or access to abortion clinics would probably have to be excluded and if so, what do we do about our tenured faculty? We know from Bob on Sesame Street that these people are not the same as each other and they aren't the same as Ayers. However, if we adopt a universal and fair standard of exclusion, it would undoubtedly include most of these unique individuals and probably have to include Socrates and very possibly Jesus. Certain books would have to banned from appearing in the library and Cool Hand Luke among other hundreds of movies would have to be filtered out somehow. I am not saying we cannot adopt such a strict standard for our beloved College, only that the consequences of such a standard would be far reaching and probably lead to situations where the College could look really, really way more awfuler than in the case of allowing Ayers to speak and if adopting a standard we ought to choose one that is more inclusive. For guidance, excellent alternative models of censorship exist in China, Saudi Arabia and Iran. Some of this has been attempted and often with some success in the United States, mostly in the old south.

Good news nuke, you can still go to the Portland gatherings. Likening Ayers to Atta is hot and juicy spin and just right for radio blowhards, but considering the facts its really not plausible. Comparing Ayers to Prop 8 may make more sense, but you must know that the College does not endorse political campaigns. In any case, 8 only affects California and not Oregon (or Maine?) where I am pretty sure you can get a gay civil union anyway. As, the College is not a political institution, it is an categorical error to make your support of St. Mary's contingent upon your political litmus test for what voices can be heard on campus. It is your privilege of course to conflate the St. Mary's College with a California ballot initiative or to make any attempt you please to force the College and its curriculum conform to your personal political passions and interests.

Whether it is catholic enough for you makes a more relevant question. But, Ayers?! So, when did you first notice that the curriculum included non-Catholic elements? Is Ayers so much more non-catholic than Newton, Plato, Nietsche, Einstein, Voltaire and Martin Luther that only Ayers' 45 minute-or-so presentation is intolerable to you? Ayers scholarship in education so far as I have seen, is completely inert toward religion of any kind I know and it's certainly not anti-catholic. It may comfort you somewhat to recall that Ayers and the Pope shared the same view of the Viet Nam War.

Isn't this good fun! You've made a long list of incoherent claims here and I will get to some of them. It's too bad we're not sitting 'round a table in Dante Hall for this...surely you know the place, don't you? (that's a small jab at the practical certainty that you are just some affiliate of the mob that is about to invade the campus over this silliness). Geeze, it's a good thing for us that they scheduled Ayers. Otherwise all we would do here is talk about the superiority of Gael rugby & basketball.

Pedantic: check your latin - I make no ad hominem arguments. It's a rule with me...you moron (I'm only kidding here, of course, and that's meant to be completely ironical and with a wink that would never come across in simple text. Let's not feign outrage for effect over this.). But, okay, Ayers, like Adams, Washington, Mandela, Pearse and O'Connell targeted the regime that they opposed. Atta, Bin Laden, our homeless reactionary radio host, et al, (and maybe Sam Adams, but certainly this includes you) targeted defenseless innocents in order to intimidate and frighten and rally political pressure to support their cause and/or career. Like Mandela, Ayers was not only right on the issue, but their targets were consistent with their claims of wrongdoing (one ought to heed their example rather than blaming the College for Ayers or Prop. As in a game show or the Prior Analytics (that's Aristotle) the categories here are St. Mary's College OR modern U.S. party politics. Like Bob says - one of these things is not like the other.

Innocence: Hey YOU (not me) brought up Prop 8 as an argument against Professor Ayers speaking at SMC. I deny not knowing what "conflation" means...and categorically so. It is not a word with very many meanings.

All of those anti-Ayers opinionators have been taking advantage of the intellectual generosity of those of us Americans that have not yet made the demand for or a defense of what Ayers opposed - the Viet Nam War. If you think Ayers was wrong, in order to be credible you will have to defend the War. American protest ended that war early and saved thousands of American lives. If you oppose American protest of the war you will really have to defend extending the war in Viet Nam.
br> They're not idiots. Let's leave it to the students to determine whether Ayers, Marx, Burke, Jefferson, King, Socrates and whomever else makes sense - if they can handle Nietzsche, surely they can handle Ayers…or anyone else.

I know this is out of your order, but as far as "monsters" go I submit the example of the envoy of the Reagan administration's state department. First, he instructed us that Gorbachev's name was properly pronounced "garbage-off." Okay making fun with names as foreign policy is petty and un-American, but it may not rise to the standard of evil - whatever. But, next he explained to us that thermonuclear war with the Soviets was imminent because the Soviets had more tanks in Europe and they perceived weakness; there was nothing to be done about the "homosexual disease of AIDS"; and, the policy of "destabilization" that included death squads, genocide, militant totalitarianism, and other acts of war was the only way to maintain order in Central America - including perhaps too many dead bishops and nuns. (Too many for me, perhaps not enough for you.) Then there was the lie about not negotiating with the terrorists in Iran. Yet, there he was in Dryden Hall and without protest or alumni abandonment of the College. Ayers is for flippin' tourists! We have had REAL terrorists speaking on our campus.

Pope Paul and Professor Ayers have little in common. There's no syllogistic demand here as you may know (you've never heard of BARBARA - but, you can learn about that at SMC, too! Hey, you brought it up.) I'm just saying, since you brought up, your issue with the quality of the Catholic-ness of the voices available to St. Mary's students, that it makes no sense to be suddenly in a hissy fit over the likes of Ayres when you have, for one example, Martin Luther on practically every Seminar reading list.

Finally, there is no such thing as "Philosophy 3a" course at St. Mary's (or probably any other college). All Gaels know this. That ad hominem attack of yours makes us think you are probably a fraud - that you were never a President's Club member, a contributor, a student, or an alumnus, an alumna or a visitor to Moraga.