Should Grand Canyon University Have Allowed Ben Shapiro to Speak?
In the ongoing debate over free speech and ideological diversity in higher education, the question of whether Grand Canyon University (GCU) should have allowed Ben Shapiro to speak on campus is particularly pertinent. This discussion delves into the importance of open dialogue, the role of universities in fostering critical thinking, and the implications of silencing controversial speakers.
Arguments Against Allowing Shapiro to Speak
Some argue that GCU should not have allowed Shapiro to speak on campus for the very reason that he lacks significant life experience. Benjamin Shapiro, a well-known political commentator and legal analyst, is often criticized for his emotional and dogmatic approach to debate. Critics suggest that inviting speakers with less life experience to debate Shapiro could help promote a more balanced discussion. However, this perspective overlooks the fundamental principle of open dialogue that universities should uphold.
Universities as Safe Spaces for Open Debate
The University of Louisville Libraries position, which states that universities should not be safe spaces from viewpoints one disagrees with, is a foundational belief in academic freedom. Universities, particularly those rooted in religious traditions like GCU, should actively encourage students to engage with diverse ideas, rather than shield them from them. Experiencing and confronting perspectives one disagrees with is an essential part of the educational process and helps develop critical thinking skills.
The Shift in University Education
Historically, universities were places where a broad range of ideas were debated and discussed. This fosters an environment where students can learn to think critically and independently. Unfortunately, this has changed in many institutions, especially in liberal arts departments, which have become indoctrination centers rather than places of free exchange of ideas. This shift is detrimental not only to the students involved but also to society at large.
The scarcity of conservative voices in liberal arts departments, coupled with the increasing pressure to silence controversial speakers, is part of a broader trend where diversity in thought is increasingly restricted. This is exemplified by the hesitancy of many comedians to perform on campus out of fear of causing offense or even legal consequences. The exclusion of speakers like Ben Shapiro highlights a troubling shift in how universities approach ideological diversity.
Conclusion
While it is understandable to seek a safe space from differing viewpoints, universities should aim to provide a platform for open dialogue and critical debate. Allowing controversial speakers like Ben Shapiro to speak on campus is essential for fostering a culture of intellectual curiosity and independent thinking.
Ultimately, universities must strive to be spaces where diverse ideas are encouraged, challenged, and discussed, rather than silencing voices that do not align with the prevailing orthodoxy.