Reader upset over opposition to ‘campus free speech’ bill
After reading your “Jeers to Rep. Liz Pike” (Editorial in July 13, 2017 Post-Record), I became very confused as to “campus free speech rights” and the protection of the First Amendment. Because of your stated opposition to the elements of this legislation, I question if you would even accept this letter as suitable for viewing but I will continue. You mentioned that you opposed the bill’s prohibition of opposing group’s restriction of other people’s free speech. Now let’s look at what you stated. You would support people infringing on the free speech of others who would oppose your point of view — so only your view is the accepted way of looking at things. Wow! And that colleges would not be able to prohibit “controversial” speakers from speaking on campus. Now who decides what is “controversial,” you or those deemed “suitable” by your point of view? I thought liberal education was to allow a variety of points of view, so that college students could examine these various points and determine what they would choose to believe and not told or brainwashed by only one perspective. These are college students, no more than one step away from adulthood responsibilities don’t treat them like kindergarteners. Let them decide for themselves. They don’t need “safe zones,” they need opportunities to think for themselves by being exposed to a variety of ways to view important subjects.
Your references to the Koch brothers, Goldwater (Institute) and the “alt-right” indicated who you thought were instigators behind this crazy scheme of “opposition to free speech rights” but I didn’t see any references to those supporting the other side. I know of a number of groups not seen as the epitome of respectable groups by today’s society who would side with your view but will refrain from casting aspersions. This is where logical debate has gone — not focusing on the issues at hand but throwing verbal grenades at opposing views to silence them from the discussion. This is what political correctness has brought us to — censoring oppositional views deemed unsuitable by the enlightened. Governed by the elite and informed by the enlightened because the rest of us are too dumb to think for ourselves and understand frauds when we see them, lies when we hear them, and phony people when we elect them.
Bob Liggett, Washougal