You honestly think Anne Coulter is a legimate intellectual theorist? She's an inflammatory rabal rouser. Asking why college campuses don't invite Anne Coulter to speak is like asking why they don't invite Howard Stern.

Actually, I don't--and I was careful not to say I did. I don't think Churchill is, either. My point is that campus groups should be allowed to decide for themselves who they hear. If they want to waste funds on hacks, that's unfortunate, but it's better than the alternative, which is censorship and viewpoint discrimination.

See The Alexander Hamilton Institute for the Study of Western Civilization www.theahi.org for further follow on the alumni response the the Kirkland Project and Hamtilton College.

"If they want to waste funds on hacks, that's unfortunate, but it's better than the alternative, which is censorship and viewpoint discrimination."

Some institutions waste ALL their funds on hacks. The liberal-run student activities board at my university brought Michael Moore to speak one year. Every student was required to pay into the activities fund and since they had spent the all money on Moore there "wasn't enough left" to bring in any speakers of an opposing view.

We protested Moore's speech because we disagreed with his message but even more so because we knew that moderate and conservative students had been cheated. The response was astounding. We were called fascists, warmongers, filthy b**ches. I was spat upon while the campus police watched. I was told that I should be blown up by a suicide bomber in Iraq.

All we wanted was the university to recognize its skewed priorities and its censorship of opposing views through its refusal to allocate some of our own money to promote balance. One would think it would be a reasonable request, but I suppose this is what happens when liberal bureaucracies take our money and distribute it "as they see fit."

When universities are led like businesses, this is what happens. Anyone in the "real world" will tell you horror stories about the money and resources and time wasted on pointless speakers.

Even worse, universities are led like particular businesses: shopping malls. Students are told that the meaning of life is in consuming -- it'll stop the terrorists and save the economy! So student governments and student groups are allowed to choose speakers and activities like a teenager choosing a sports drink or a pack of gum packaged like cigarettes or medication.

University money should not pay for a speaker who lacks the highest possible degree in his or her field and who hasn't published peer-reviewed scholarship in that field. This goes for moron politicians speaking at graduation, moron business leaders speaking to a club, or moron leftist activists speaking to a small group of pseudo-hippies.

University money should not pay for a speaker who lacks the highest possible degree in his or her field and who hasn't published peer-reviewed scholarship in that field. This goes for moron politicians speaking at graduation, moron business leaders speaking to a club, or moron leftist activists speaking to a small group of pseudo-hippies.

Which is to say that people other than college professors have nothing to say worth hearing on campus and that people who manage to get elected to public office, build their own businesses, or are promoted within the ranks of existing businesses may be assumed to be 'morons' (at least if college administrators are interested in recruiting them to speak).

Art, here's an English lesson for you. An adjective *modifies* a noun, it makes it more specific. It is not a copula. "Moron politicians" are particular politicians; "moron businessmen" are particular businessmen.

My point was that by holding speakers to the highest intellectual standards, they can avoid much of the controversy surrounding campus speakers. You have a point, of course, that some speakers might be allowed who are not professional scholars in their fields: poets, for example. But by and large, this should be kept to a minimum. Business schools might bring in business leaders, but business schools, like other professional programs, are basically trade schools.

There are plenty of people who "have something to say" in the world. My granny could teach most kids a lot of things. But that's not the point of the four fleeting years kids spend in college. They will have plenty of time to hear, say, politicians give speeches. But this might be one of their few chances to hear a physicist or a philosopher or a classicist.

Art, here's an English lesson for you. An adjective *modifies* a noun, it makes it more specific. It is not a copula. "Moron politicians" are particular politicians; "moron businessmen" are particular businessmen.

I am aware that adjectives modify nouns. You a.) said that all speakers invited should be academics and b.) made reference to people in other occupations with said modifier and made no reference to any others in said occupations not meriting said modifier. You are either commenting on people in the occupations in question or on the taste of the people who invite them. The conclusion drawn as to your attitude was proper.

My point was that by holding speakers to the highest intellectual standards, they can avoid much of the controversy surrounding campus speakers.

1. Insisting that someone have a doctoral degree and a peer-reviewed publication under their belt counts not as 'the highest standards' but as a set of professional milestones that have been met by most of those on baccalaureate-granting campuses.

2. I think you mean 'much of the controversy surrounding the principles of selection applied'. You can avoid much of that controversy by applying different principles of selection. (Speakers with something to say will generate a different sort of controversy as a matter of routine).

3. People do not necessarily manifest their intelligence in a specifically academic setting. Students listen to academics five days a week. They can certainly benefit from listening to a person of achievement in some other endeavour every once and a while.

4. If we applied your criterion religously, Timothy Shortell would be perfectly welcome as a campus speaker and the President of Bausch & Lomb would not.

You have a point, of course, that some speakers might be allowed who are not professional scholars in their fields: poets, for example. But by and large, this should be kept to a minimum.

Why limit it to poets?

Business schools might bring in business leaders, but business schools, like other professional programs, are basically trade schools.

1. They are trade schools, which means what they teach might just have operational measures of competence.

2. I am not sure why students in the liberal arts are to be denied the opportunity of hearing from businessmen. Do they really utter that many more inanities than poets?

3. Our military has been fighting a counter-insurgency war for five years now and the liberal-arts college down the road cannot put together an intelligent panel discussion on the subject because all of their panels consist of extant faculty and they have (out of 230 professors and lecturers) at most two professors who know anything of security studies, one who has written military history, and one professor who admits to having had military service in his younger years. They cannot call in Col. So-and-so formerly of the Special Forces because he does not meet the "highest intellectual standards".

They will have plenty of time to hear, say, politicians give speeches. But this might be one of their few chances to hear a physicist or a philosopher or a classicist.

They can sign up for the classes available for same on their campus. Opportunities to hear from business executives and soldiers will likely be fewer.

Luther, you're spinning, and worse, wobbling as you do.

I interpreted your post exactly the same way Art Deco did.

But even if the comprehension problem is our interpretation of your words, rather than your expression of them, who's to decide which politicians, leftists and captains of industry are and are not "morons?"

Who's to be in charge of deciding who are authorities of the "highest intellectual standards?" The same academics and administrators who currently decide on speakers?

For myself, I'm not at all worried about having nut cases address college students, and I'd rather have too much speech than too little. All I ask is a little balance: if a school is going to have a spokesman for one side of an issue, how 'bout having the other side represented by an equally articulate champion? Is there an argument against this?

As an aside, I think you have "anger issues" which cloud your thought processes. Perhaps you should work them out.