PZ Myers, the increasingly obscure atheist activist, rationalizes the need to censor non-Leftist views on campus by complaining that universities don’t have infinite time and resources. The argument is basically as follows: “We’d let you speak, but because our time and money is limited, we have to choose speakers whose speech we value.” Of course, this is a coward’s justification, which is not surprising given that cowardice and censorship go hand in hand. After all, many of these universities are places where the students need to be shielded from viewpoints that make them feel “unsafe.”
Jerry Coyne responds by appropriately mocking Myers as The Decider.
Look, if limited time and money is the problem, perhaps universities could adopt some form of Fairness Doctrine – for every leftist that speaks, it could be balanced by the right-winger. I’m not sure why so many university professors feel the need to censor opposing political and social views. You would think they would want to showcase such viewpoints as a “teachable moment” for their students. That is, let the speaker make his/her case, and then use the opportunity to dissect the talk with critical thinking. But instead, they prefer to shield their students from such viewpoints. Of course, if it is true that more and more universities are engaged in indoctrination disguised as education, it makes sense the professors would rationalize censorship. For a common feature of indoctrination is controlling what the converts hear and think.