I didn't think that Derschowitz was banned anywhere. If he ever was, then that's clearly wrong, and I find it problematic. But that's not the point. The point is that LU also issues bannings, with none of the same notoriety.
That's not what I read. The students who invited him to pray claim to have signed the correct paperwork. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...campus/544571/You're doing the same thing. Here's some clarification:
Now because of false assumptions, more delusion:
More relevantly, he was also disinvited from giving an alumni lecture in 2015. Right or wrong, it has the same flavour as the disinvitations of speakers by more liberal colleges. Conservative 'cancel culture', however, receives none of the same attention.
JP is aware. He's not a complete idiot.Again, you make the *false* assumption that the accusation against the University is correct and that JP was also aware of this. JP goes to hostile universities and allows the opposition to act like wild animals. What else should he do
???
1. The examples mentioned are not censorship.
2. You're evading the central point.
Finally, I feel it important to add that LU requires its students to take oaths that stipulate strict limitations on personal freedoms, limitations which include restrictions against homosexuality and sex outside marriage. Students aren't allowed to consume alcohol, tobacco, or use profane language. Only recently were students allowed to watch R-rated films. The school also practices some segregation between the sexes.
I believe in freedom of religion and don't feel the need to take an active stance against these restrictions; nor am I interested in challenging anyone's sincerely held beliefs, religious or otherwise; nor do I wish to see people discouraged from acting in earnest according to their personally-held convictions.
But, I believe that this observation cuts close to the heart of the issue, which is that evangelical Christianity, as well as the sort of Christianity practiced by Jordan Peterson, is fundamentally, constitutionally restrictive of personal expression, whereby the criticism of liberal censorship falls rather flat, at best, and is disingenuous at worst.



Reply With Quote