The problem that isn't being addressed here is that provocateurs like Moore and Coulter are brought in as speakers in the first place. They command high fees to present recycled tedious, predictable polemical rants that lack intellectual depth and rigor. They substitute cleverness and wordplay for genuine argument, and they offer little or nothing that is new or imaginative.
The money would be better spent on bringing in genuine scholars and intellectuals (our college has recently hosted W.S. Merwin and Seamus Heaney, for instance), in which case the need for this sort of policy would vanish.
Which is also right. The reason that Ann Coulter and Michael Moore shouldn't be invited isn't because they are too controversial for our tender ears. It's because they are morons. I like having interesting speakers at Carleton, from all sides of the political divide (we had, among others, Jonah Goldberg and Derrick Bell this year). Frothing polemics are "interesting" only in the way a car wreck is.
Via Daniel Solove.
3 comments:
This is assuming that the purpose of bringing big speakers is intellectual enlightenment. In my experience, the big speakers are brought for entertainment value -- and having someone like Moore or Coulter who will just reinforce everyone's prejudices is highly entertaining after a long day of studying or drinking. They also have the added advantage of giving an opportunity for both sides to get self-righteous.
David,
While I think there are fine reasons for not wanting idealogical cheerleaders like Moore and Coulter as speakers calling them "morons" is not apt. A wordsmith such as yourself should be more carefull not to use such a pessimific word, eh? ;-)
As you point out they "substitute cleverness and wordplay" which to do on the fly takes a level of perspicacity which is not associated with the term moron.
Jack beat me to it.
Post a Comment