‘Lack of Balance’: Catholic U. of America Denies Pro-Israel Student Group’s Speakers
“This denial is not an isolated incident; it is the latest link in a chain of discriminatory hurdles we have faced since the group’s founding”
I don’t recall a situation where this standard has been applied to leftists on campus.
The College Fix reports:
Catholic U. denies pro-Israel student group’s speakers, citing ‘lack of balance’
Catholic University of America denied speaker requests from the Students Supporting Israel chapter on campus, citing a lack of balance in viewpoints offered.
The university told The College Fix it invited the students to resubmit their proposal with broader viewpoints. Meanwhile, a free speech expert said the school should not require students to balance out controversial ideas.
SSI President Felipe Avila told The Fix the university denied its request to invite two speakers for an event about combatting antisemitism in America via a written notice on Feb. 25.
The university “cited an obscure, selectively applied policy requiring us to ‘restructure the event’ to include ‘speakers representing both sides,’ implying that antisemitism is a legitimate viewpoint in need of a platform,” Avila said.
“This is a deceptive, discriminatory policy weaponized squarely against Students Supporting Israel,” he said.
He noted that the College Democrats were permitted to host a speaker from a partisan organization focused on electing candidates who “protect abortion access,” without the requirement that they invite a pro-life voice.
“By this logic, must the pro-life club now platform Planned Parenthood? Must the ASPCA invite advocates for animal cruelty? Or is this ‘balance’ mandate reserved only for us?” Avila told The Fix.
“This denial is not an isolated incident; it is the latest link in a chain of discriminatory hurdles we have faced since the group’s founding,” he said.
Moving forward, the group is demanding that the school approve its speakers without conditions and apply policies equally.
“We aren’t asking for special treatment; we are demanding the same free expression rights afforded to every other group on this campus,” Avila said.
CUA spokesperson Karna Lozoya told The College Fix, “the University did not simply deny Students Supporting Israel the opportunity to host a conversation on this topic.”
CUA instead invited SSI to resubmit their proposal, including a wider variety of viewpoints than previously proposed. University administration would like to work together with SSI “to host a thoughtful conversation.”
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
So whenever any group there has a speaker on civil rights, they have to invite the KKK to give the opposite point of view?! If there’s a speaker against rape or domestic violence, do they have to invite someone to speak for those things as well?!
There is not a variety of legitimate views on antisemitism. Nor is there any “thoughtful conversation” to be had about it. Either you’re against it or you’re a disgusting piece of shit whose opinions should not be given a platform.
And yet you demand that a speaker be invited to make a case for antisemitism?! How is that consistent with standing firmly against it?
all they needed was one of their own pro blmplo professors to debate them
Hmm, I have one comment on this post, and destroycommunism has one comment, and yet the footer to the post / header to the comments is saying “one comment”.
And now that I’ve posted this it immediately switched to “2 comments” when there are actually 3. Presumably when this posts it will switch to “3” when there will be 4. Is my substantive comment being held for moderation? To test that, I’ll repost it next.
I see only three posts. Your first post (post #2) complains about the footer saying “one post.” Therefore, you must have posted something before it, which isn’t showing yet.
I’ve tried four times to post a substantive comment, but all four are only visible to me. I can’t even reply to them, because you can’t reply to unapproved comments. I’ve tried changing various words to get past whatever filter caught it, but so far no go.
I’m going to try posting it in sections, to see which bit the filter objects to.
So whenever any group there has a speaker on civil rights, they have to invite the KKK to give the opposite point of view?! If there’s a speaker against rape or domestic violence, do they have to invite someone to speak for those things as well?!
There is not a variety of legitimate views on antisemitism. Nor is there any “thoughtful conversation” to be had about it. Either you’re against it or you’re a disgusting piece of garbage whose opinions should not be given a platform.
And yet you demand that a speaker be invited to make a case for antisemitism?! How is that consistent with standing firmly against it?
OK, trying again, this time changing the word I think is causing the problem:
————
So whenever any group there has a speaker on civil rights, they have to invite the KKK to give the opposite point of view?! If there’s a speaker against grape or domestic violence, do they have to invite someone to speak for those things as well?!
There is not a variety of legitimate views on antisemitism. Nor is there any “thoughtful conversation” to be had about it. Either you’re against it or you’re a disgusting piece of garbage whose opinions should not be given a platform.
And yet you demand that a speaker be invited to make a case for antisemitism?! How is that consistent with standing firmly against it?
So whenever any group there has a speaker on civil rights, they have to invite the KKK to give the opposite point of view?! If there’s a speaker against grape or domestic violets, do they have to invite someone to speak for those things as well?!
There is not a variety of legitimate views on antisemitism. Nor is there any “thoughtful conversation” to be had about it. Either you’re against it or you’re a disgusting piece of garbage whose opinions should not be given a platform.
And yet you demand that a speaker be invited to make a case for antisemitism?! How is that consistent with standing firmly against it?
So whenever any group there has a speaker on civil rights, they have to invite the KKK to give the opposite point of view?!
If there’s a speaker against grape or domestic violets, do they have to invite someone to speak for those things as well?!
If there’s a speaker against rayp or domestic violets, do they have to invite someone to speak for those things as well?!
There is not a variety of legitimate views on antisemitism. Nor is there any “thoughtful conversation” to be had about it. Either you’re against it or you’re a disgusting piece of garbage whose opinions should not be given a platform.
And yet you demand that a speaker be invited to make a case for antisemitism?! How is that consistent with standing firmly against it?