Universities Must Defend Free Speech Even for Those We Disagree With
Source: "Ex-Northwestern president axed as Georgetown Law commencement speaker | Fox News." May 9, 2026. www.foxnews.com
The Gist
The author argues that universities are hypocritically canceling speakers they disagree with while claiming to support free speech. Even though he previously criticized the cancelled speaker, he believes universities must defend everyone's right to speak, not just people they like.
Conclusion
Universities should defend free speech principles consistently, even when protecting speakers whose views they find objectionable
Premises
- Georgetown Law School cancelled Morton Schapiro as commencement speaker solely because he supports Israel, despite his qualifications
- Universities routinely select liberal/Democratic speakers while excluding conservative voices, creating ideological echo chambers
- The same cancel culture tactics that Schapiro once enabled at Northwestern are now being used against him
- Academic institutions have abandoned intellectual diversity by allowing student mobs to determine which viewpoints are acceptable
- Commencement ceremonies have become vehicles for ideological indoctrination rather than celebrating graduates
Assumptions
- Free speech principles require protecting all viewpoints, not just popular ones
- Universities should prioritize intellectual diversity and open debate
- Student protests should not determine academic programming decisions
- Supporting Israel is a legitimate political position that shouldn't disqualify speakers
- Ideological consistency in applying free speech principles is morally necessary