Update on BYU Graduation

[_Bryan Inks]

It seems that there is going to be an alternative commencement speaker. . . one Ralph Nader. No venue chosen as of today.

[_The Dude]

It seems that there is going to be an alternative commencement speaker. . . one Ralph Nader. No venue chosen as of today.

So there are going to be two speakers? Wow, if it's true. Do you chalk this up as a win for free speech at BYU? That's how it sounds.

[_Bryan Inks]

It seems that there is going to be an alternative commencement speaker. . . one Ralph Nader. No venue chosen as of today.

So there are going to be two speakers? Wow, if it's true. Do you chalk this up as a win for free speech at BYU? That's how it sounds.

Actually, I'm chalking it up to "frantically trying to not look like douches".

Kind of similar to the UVSC/Michael Moore scenario, only better funded.

XD

[_guy sajer]

It seems that there is going to be an alternative commencement speaker. . . one Ralph Nader. No venue chosen as of today.

So there are going to be two speakers? Wow, if it's true. Do you chalk this up as a win for free speech at BYU? That's how it sounds.

How is this a triumph for free speech? It strikes me as quite the opposite.

I am not a big fan of Cheney, and I hold him second most responsible for this mess in Iraq, but I am also opposed to censorship. Like it or not, Cheney is the sitting VP, privy to the halls of power at the highest level of the most powerful nation in the world for nigh 7 years now, he's participated in high levels of administration of two other Presidents, he has run a major multi-national corporation. Regardless of how one views his politics, he is a man of sufficient gravitas to address university students at commencement.

I think he should talk, as I think Michael Moore should have spoken at UVSC last year (or whenever it was). I think it more than appropriate to protest Cheney's poitics, the war, etc., but I do not agree with any agenda to muzzle him and keep him from speaking.

I am further disappointed that those who supported the cause of free speech during the Michael Moore fiasco are now opposing free speech in the Dick Cheney imbruglio.

I think it does people good to hear from those with whom they disagree, and I think it's immature to expect to be protected, or to protect others, from hearing from those with whom they disagree. (I'm not calling anyone here immature, but I am saying that in general about those who think that because they disagree with Cheney, then somehow he should be prohibited from speaking.)

A university is where one goes to be challenged, not to be sheltered from ideas they don't like. Unfortunately, that attitude got me in trouble at BYU, but I still, nonetheless, believe it fervently.

I realize that it may not be all that simple, that there may be undercurrents and back stories, and nuances of which I'm not aware. So please keep that in mind.

[_harmony]

It seems that there is going to be an alternative commencement speaker. . . one Ralph Nader. No venue chosen as of today.

So there are going to be two speakers? Wow, if it's true. Do you chalk this up as a win for free speech at BYU? That's how it sounds.

How is this a triumph for free speech? It strikes me as quite the opposite.

I am not a big fan of Cheney, and I hold him second most responsible for this mess in Iraq, but I am also opposed to censorship. Like it or not, Cheney is the sitting VP, privy to the halls of power at the highest level of the most powerful nation in the world for nigh 7 years now, he's participated in high levels of administration of two other Presidents, he has run a major multi-national corporation. Regardless of how one views his politics, he is a man of sufficient gravitas to address university students at commencement.

I think he should talk, as I think Michael Moore should have spoken at UVSC last year (or whenever it was). I think it more than appropriate to protest Cheney's poitics, the war, etc., but I do not agree with any agenda to muzzle him and keep him from speaking.

I am further disappointed that those who supported the cause of free speech during the Michael Moore fiasco are now opposing free speech in the Dick Cheney imbruglio.

I think it does people good to hear from those with whom they disagree, and I think it's immature to expect to be protected, or to protect others, from hearing from those with whom they disagree. (I'm not calling anyone here immature, but I am saying that in general about those who think that because they disagree with Cheney, then somehow he should be prohibited from speaking.)

A university is where one goes to be challenged, not to be sheltered from ideas they don't like. Unfortunately, that attitude got me in trouble at BYU, but I still, nonetheless, believe it fervently.

I realize that it may not be all that simple, that there may be undercurrents and back stories, and nuances of which I'm not aware. So please keep that in mind.

Whose choice is it? If the choice was made by the administration, then why is there any surprise that some of the students object? The powers-that-be chose a person who represents Power with a capital P in the real world.

What is the purpose of the commencement speaker? He can serve as a negative motivator or a positive one, depending on one's point of view. Cheney represents Power and Money, safely making the decisions that send young people to die in a foreign land, behind the protective wall of the Establishment... all those things the students have little of. The students represent the young men and women who are actually dying because of the decisions of Cheney and men like him. It's appropriate to protest his speech. It's too bad the students jumped the gun and revealed their lack of strategy. It would have been a good spectacle to watch and likely would have brought their message to a much larger audience than just the provincial Utah one it's getting now.

[_moksha]

This isn't going to happen. BYU would never allow an alternative commencement and they would never invite Ralph Nader to be the speaker. They oppose the environment and consumer safety as cutting into potential business earnings.

[_guy sajer]

It seems that there is going to be an alternative commencement speaker. . . one Ralph Nader. No venue chosen as of today.

So there are going to be two speakers? Wow, if it's true. Do you chalk this up as a win for free speech at BYU? That's how it sounds.

How is this a triumph for free speech? It strikes me as quite the opposite.

I am not a big fan of Cheney, and I hold him second most responsible for this mess in Iraq, but I am also opposed to censorship. Like it or not, Cheney is the sitting VP, privy to the halls of power at the highest level of the most powerful nation in the world for nigh 7 years now, he's participated in high levels of administration of two other Presidents, he has run a major multi-national corporation. Regardless of how one views his politics, he is a man of sufficient gravitas to address university students at commencement.

I think he should talk, as I think Michael Moore should have spoken at UVSC last year (or whenever it was). I think it more than appropriate to protest Cheney's poitics, the war, etc., but I do not agree with any agenda to muzzle him and keep him from speaking.

I am further disappointed that those who supported the cause of free speech during the Michael Moore fiasco are now opposing free speech in the Dick Cheney imbruglio.

I think it does people good to hear from those with whom they disagree, and I think it's immature to expect to be protected, or to protect others, from hearing from those with whom they disagree. (I'm not calling anyone here immature, but I am saying that in general about those who think that because they disagree with Cheney, then somehow he should be prohibited from speaking.)

A university is where one goes to be challenged, not to be sheltered from ideas they don't like. Unfortunately, that attitude got me in trouble at BYU, but I still, nonetheless, believe it fervently.

I realize that it may not be all that simple, that there may be undercurrents and back stories, and nuances of which I'm not aware. So please keep that in mind.

Whose choice is it? If the choice was made by the administration, then why is there any surprise that some of the students object? The powers-that-be chose a person who represents Power with a capital P in the real world.

What is the purpose of the commencement speaker? He can serve as a negative motivator or a positive one, depending on one's point of view. Cheney represents Power and Money, safely making the decisions that send young people to die in a foreign land, behind the protective wall of the Establishment... all those things the students have little of. The students represent the young men and women who are actually dying because of the decisions of Cheney and men like him. It's appropriate to protest his speech. It's too bad the students jumped the gun and revealed their lack of strategy. It would have been a good spectacle to watch and likely would have brought their message to a much larger audience than just the provincial Utah one it's getting now.

don't' get me wrong Harmony. I have no problem with students and others protesting against Cheney and what he stands for. That is part of free speech too. My issue has to do with those whose objective is to keep Cheney from speaking in the first place or who somehow oppose the notion that the admin would, or should, refrain from inviting someone with whom they disagree from speaking. There appears to be a number of motivations behind the protests, and it's hard to distinguish what's driving them in the first place.

So, yes, protest the bastard to your heart's content, no problem. But refrain from delineating on partisan grounds what speech is acceptable and what is not.