A Student Reacts
Mick Wright links to a letter-to-the editor from a senior at Harding University on the Ann Coulter brouhaha, which includes a reference to the “blogging alumni who so adamantly opposed” her. The author, Zachary Cheatam, points to another example of a lefty who was an American Studies Institute (ASI) speaker at Harding: Wesley Clark. Good point. I had mentioned Gorbachev and James Zogby, but had forgotten about Clark. Remember, he was the Democratic Presidential candidate who was both for and against the Iraq war before John Kerry was both for and against it. He was also the General who had trouble finding colleagues, subordinates, or superiors wiling to say something nice about him:
Soon after Clark entered the race, though, another Clinton-era general, Tommy Franks, who retired this summer after directing the capture of Baghdad, was asked in a private setting whether he believed that Clark would make a good President. “Absolutely not,†Franks replied.
Retired General Hugh Shelton was asked the same question after giving a talk at a college in California. Shelton, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was Clark’s boss in 1999 when Clark was unceremoniously told that he was being removed from his position as Supreme Allied Commander, Europe. “I’ve known Wes for a long time,†Shelton said. “I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. . . . Wes won’t get my vote.†Shelton has refused to explain how he came to his conclusion.
Back to Harding, a comment on Fishkite links to a letter from 2000 in which a novelist named Bette Greene claims she was dis-invited from Harding also. Her letter made the rather ugly and totally unsubstantiated charge that Harding objected to her because she’s against murdering homosexuals, implying that the school is for it.
In any event, this has nothing to do with ASI, which invited Coulter. It’s unclear whether anyone ever actually invited Greene to campus, though it apparently wasn’t ASI. Claiming to be censored never hurts book sales though.
UPDATE: More student reaction, this time from the other side. Links to The Bison letters available over at Fishkite.
related articles
- Fifteen Years Years Ago, Today (July 10th, 2007)
- Soft on Crime? That’s Rich (July 2nd, 2007)
- Constantly Directing? (June 23rd, 2007)
- WorldNetDaily: Elrod v. Thompson (June 11th, 2007)
- Just War v. Pacifism Debate (April 21st, 2007)
September 26th, 2005 at 12:03 pm
Ira North used to tell us that we needed balance. I think that’s still true. I have no problem listening to Clark or Coulter and reserving for myself the right to decide whether or not they were worth hearing. When the left and right get into censorship wars (and I believe the left is far more censorious than the right) we all lose.
September 26th, 2005 at 12:23 pm
I am one of those who was disappointed by the fact that Ann Coulter was being invited to speak at Harding (Though I did not spend time blogging about it). This is for the same reason why I would be disappointed by the selection of Micheal Moore. The bloggers who made the point that Moore and Coulter are the same in terms of style (shock rhetoric, inflamatory remarks, etc…) though on opposite ends of the political spectrum are correct. I was not disappointed with the selection of Ann Coulter not because of her political position but because of the way she goes about representing it, which I feel in no way represents a Christian character and therefore is unfit to be at Harding University or any other learning institution that seeks first to be a Christian environment.
I personally Harding would be wise to seek speakers from both the left and right sides of the political sphere. These speakers do not necessarily need to be professing Christians in order to receive an invitation but when their speech and actions work against Christianity (i.e. are not neutral to Christianity but actually have a negative impact), then why would anyone want them to speak.
September 26th, 2005 at 9:24 pm
People keep saying that the way she goes about expressing her opinion is somehow inconsistent with Christianity. No one ever explains why, though. There seems to be an assumption that sarcasm and satire and hyperbole are somehow illegitimate rhetorical tools. Why? Says who? Where is it written?
Michael Moore is nothing like Ann Coulter. The only thing they have in common is that they are both controversial figures. He is simply not a serious person. He’s a propagandist devoid of intellectual honesty.
As for balance in ASI, it is the balance. How many other universities have perfectly balanced lectureship programs? The vast, vast majority of universities are extremely leftist and wouldn’t dream of inviting anyone to the right of Noam Chomsky. At most schools, conservative students have to scrap and fight and raise their own funds to bring in one conservative speaker and still they face opposition. Still, I would not be against a bit more balance, so long as the speakers and topics remain consistent with the purpose of the program. It is the American Studies Institute. It is about recognizing and promoting American exceptionalism, which is not an idea shared by many leftists:
Lots of folks on the left have problems with one or more of the three C’s. Christopher Matthews is an example someone on the left who would be an appropriate ASI speaker. He wrote eloquently about American exceptionalism in American : Beyond Our Grandest Notions
.
September 27th, 2005 at 12:18 am
Are you spoking crack?:-) Now I’ll be serious. Extremist wrties:
“People keep saying that the way she goes about expressing her opinion is somehow inconsistent with Christianity. No one ever explains why, though. There seems to be an assumption sarcasm and satire and hyperbole are somehow illegitimate rhetorical tools.”
Even if her speech is just intended to be sarcasm and hyperbole, does that make it right? It sitll is so offensive to some people that the damage it would do (no - the damage it does) to Christian integrity is apparent. Further more it is one thing to have a speaker whose speech is non-Christian but is not having a negative impact on Christianity. But it is a whole different set of circumstances when you have a speaker who by her self alignment with “Christianity” and by her speech, not only do not represent Christ but do manything to respresent the opposite of Jesus Christ.
As for the three “C’s”. I am becoming more convicted that Capitolism is not an ethical form of government as it seems more and more out of sink with the values of God’s kingdom. In Acts 2.41ff, it seems that everyone practiced “mutual sharing” of the wealth. I know that sounds more like communism and if it does, the difference between that and more contemporary models of communism is that the church was not forced into such practice but instead “had all things in common” based on agape love for each other. While I certainly don’t think everything about the American political and economic system is evil, I do think that to many Christians read Americanism into scripture so that the American way becomes the Biblical way.
And to think this all started by a tea party in Boston. In Romans 13.1 Paul told the Christian, who were taxed w/out representation and had know political standing or freedom, to submitt to the government any how. So what gave our “Christian” founding fathers the right to rebell against the governing authorities at the time? Well, since they were deists’ (one who believes God is no longer involved or in control of the world) and not Christians, I guess if they were to go on living it was up to them to provide the freedom to do so. But the Christians in Rome believed they were already free, free in Christ that is.
Any ways, It will not be till tommorow evening when I can read your response as tommoroww I am speaking at the Harding Lecturship on Christian Hope from 1 Thessalonians 4.13-18.
Have a great day and God bless!
September 27th, 2005 at 2:55 pm
Rex, it’s interesting that one who calls Ann Coulter un-Christian would resort to ad homonim (hope I spelled that correctly.)
September 27th, 2005 at 4:03 pm
I keep seeing this comparison of Ann Coulter to Michael Moore being made. Here is the proper perspective on this: One of those people is a blithering idiot and the other is an extremely intelligent, but very sharp-tongued and quick-witted bundle of barbs. I’ll leave it to readers to figure out who is who.
September 27th, 2005 at 8:52 pm
Rex said, “I am becoming more convicted that Capitolism is not an ethical form of government as it seems more and more out of sink with the values of God’s kingdom.”
Nonsense. Capitalism, properly balanced with the other two C’s, has been the engine of the rise of democracy and prosperity for untold generations of people all over the world. Like any idea, its excesses need to be checked by the rule of law (Constitutionalism) and basic morality (Judeo-Christian values).
Rex said, “While I certainly don’t think everything about the American political and economic system is evil, I do think that to many Christians read Americanism into scripture so that the American way becomes the Biblical way.”
As opposed to reading Communism into scripture? Or opposition to the American revolution? Given the human carnage left behind by Communism in the 20th century, I’ll take Americanism with a healthy dose of Lincoln’s admonition that we ought not claim that God is on our side, but rather strive to be on His.
Hope your lecture went well. I trust you didn’t lead too many of those impressionable young minds astray.
September 27th, 2005 at 11:42 pm
I am sorry, the ad-homonim was a joke.
Any ways, the lecture went well.
And as for Ann Coulter, what I have heard from her doesn’t ring of intellegent.
September 28th, 2005 at 12:18 am
I knew it was a joke from your smiley.
But, it reminds me that the season premier of West Wing (or Left Wing as some call it) was this week. Its creator, Aaron Sorkin, really was on crack:
September 28th, 2005 at 1:46 am
I hope the crack was worth it. But I doub he will ever feel that way.
October 14th, 2005 at 10:51 pm
[…] The Bison carries another letter-to-the editor (hat tip to Fishkite), from another Harding University student about the Ann Coulter fracas. Anti-Ann student Robin Crocker writes: […]
October 15th, 2005 at 3:40 pm
[…] By the way, Wesley Clark gave the Democratic response (listen). When Clark ran for President we learned that his former boss said he was fired due to “integrity and character” issues. Too bad we didn’t know this when he spoke at Harding University. Alumni could have sent letters of protest. Permalink TrackBack […]