Public universities are legally not allowed to ban controversial speakers, even if they are racist. It is a constitutional right, and banning free speech at a public institution amounts to government censorship. This article from the ACLU is relevant: https://www.aclu.org/documents/speech-campus
Public discourse is an educational experience. Universities aren’t there to just teach you mathematics and basket weaving, it’s there to challenge your viewpoint and make you question your assumptions. That comes from being exposed to differing, even extreme, viewpoints.
Public universities are legally not allowed to ban controversial speakers, even if they are racist. It is a constitutional right, and banning free speech at a public institution amounts to government censorship. This article from the ACLU is relevant: https://www.aclu.org/documents/speech-campus
But it’s not even about him being controversial – just pointless. What educational value does a boring, loser kid have to offer?
Public discourse is an educational experience. Universities aren’t there to just teach you mathematics and basket weaving, it’s there to challenge your viewpoint and make you question your assumptions. That comes from being exposed to differing, even extreme, viewpoints.
So we’re just calling anything “education” these days.
You don’t like Kyle Rittenhouse. I don’t like Kyle Rittenhouse. He’s a horrible human being and a terrible role model.
This falls under the “I will fight to the death for your right to speak” philosophy.
Again, not challenging his right to speak. Challenging the value of what he has to say.