Free Speech on Scalia
The following Wespeak was collectively authored by a number of involved students, including the following: Virgil Taylor ’15, Ross Levin ’15, Nico Vitti ’12, Paul Blasenheim ’12, Zak Kirwood ’12, Cheryl Walker ’12, Meggie McGuire ’12, Mariama Eversley ’14, Isabelle Gauthier ’14, Josh Krugman ’14, Joseph Cribb ’13, Hannah Rubin ’13, Cesar Chavez ’15, Dan Fischer ’12, and Mica Taliaferro ’12. Though it may be written from a first-person perspective, it should be taken as a collective statement of these signers and the larger collective organizing dissent for Scalia’s arrival.
I think that it is really important that we have a speaker series about free speech. I also believe that integral to such a series is bringing people with as unpopular political views to this campus as those of Justice Scalia. I would like to echo a response posted to Roth’s own blogpost, asking why there are not more radical-left speakers brought to campus. Continuing in this effort to bring radical political viewpoints, I would hold the school to making an effort to bring the full gamut of political opinions. Diversity of political opinion is really important on a campus that can be as seemingly politically homogeneous as ours. I am mostly excited because of the conflicts, debates, discussions, and thought-provoking moments that come out of an event like this. Why is Scalia so offensive? Why is it ok to bring him here, or why is it irresponsible? Why has Scalia been chosen? What does free speech mean, and how much is Scalia consistent with the intent of our speakers series?
I hope that an event like this can give us the opportunity to learn a little more about who Justice Scalia really is, and how his opinions (not recognizing sexual discrimination, not extending habeus corpus to torture detainees, treating corporations as people, just to name a few) are so terribly harmful to values of free speech.