Good article Bowie. Thnx.
When I read the article, the things that caught my attention most:
When Governor Reagan and Nancy Reagan arrived, events took a turn for the worse. The Reagans were housed at Yale’s Timothy Dwight College, and the liberal host and hostess placed anti-Reagan newspapers and magazines all over the room in which the Reagans were staying. Nancy Reagan was made to feel so uncomfortable that she left Yale for a day and went to visit her alma mater in nearby Massachusetts, Smith College.
This makes me so sad in regards to some of the tactics employed in sociopolitical warfare. "Warfare"...hyperbole? Perhaps it is, but I'm not so sure.
I believe some of these tactics are used intentionally, like in the quote above, and others unintentionally, likely unconscious, but just as hurtful and damaging all the same.
Reagan took it all in stride. He viewed the controversy as an opportunity to inject traditional American values into young minds. Reagan taught a number of classes during the week and met with several hundred students.
This is a display of wisdom in my opinion. When he was attacked in a trollish manner, he did not troll back, rather, he engaged in a very sincere, and in some cases, lighthearted manner. Sure, some...many....most...of the trolls simply scuttled back to their caves, but some listened...considered...engaged. This is a win. Also, I am not applying this to any particular lean...left or right...Reagan is just a good example in this particular incident.
He looked directly at the few professors in the audience and forcefully told them and all the students that their job was not to indoctrinate. Their job, and the mission of the university, was to expose their students to many different points of view and to let the students decide for themselves.
In my opinion, if one's dogma/philosophy/position is strong, it should not fear confrontation from or engagement with opposition. Thus, banning/restricting speech/speakers...even if it/they is/are repulsive, does not serve the greater good in the long run. Let the
ideas be weighed...not the
one(s) expressing the idea.
And in the spirit of weighing the
idea, rather than the
proponent of the idea, I believe more would be accomplished by addressing/attacking the
idea, rather than the
proponent of the idea.
Ad hominem is not only a logical fallacy, it is also an extremely poor method of persuasion. Thus, not only will debate judges give low scores, debate opponents will not be swayed to even consider alternate positions. This is not a win in any way, other than perhaps a feeling of psychological satisfaction (to be fair, sometimes this is needed in these mad times).
