Skip to content


October 3, 2009

This story has gotten little media attention, so I though I would enlighten my readers. Recently at Saint Louis University, David Horowitz was invited to speak by conservative groups on campus. Unfortunately, the Dean of Students banned Horowitz from speaking because he believes that Horowitz’s speech was too controversial in nature.

What has happened to free speech? Saint Louis University is a Jesuit University whose mission is to bring to light as many different viewpoints as possible. Why shut out the conservative ones. Even other Jesuit schools such as Loyola and Georgetown have allowed Horowitz to speak, and he has never been banned by a college before. What happened? What is wrong with giving students opportunities to listen to different points of view?

In a world where young children are indoctrinated to sing songs about President Obama (the original song was about Jesus), why is it that free speech is being restricted? I know that there are obviously restrictions to free speech when such speech can be harmful to those listening, but aren’t college students old enough to make up their own minds? College is a time for exploration and great change. Change does not occur when only specific messages are available to students.

Now I know that a Private University such as Saint Louis University has every right to turn away speakers, but only rarely. They have allowed Holocaust deniers to speak in the past! David Horowitz is an accomplished writer and political pundit who has appeared on countless news casts. I’m not saying that such acts qualify him to speak, but I am saying that he is respected in the political world. He’s not someone you would find preaching the end of the world on a street corner.

So to wrap up, I thought I’d just get that out there for everyone to hear. Please don’t be silent in your beliefs, speak out (peacefully of course) and let your views be known. Live your life around the principle of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness!”


Yet Another Typical White Person

One Comment leave one →
  1. October 12, 2009 1:33 pm

    It’s a good point, but I think the article would be improved by changing the comment of free speech to something else. You and I both know know that free speech means the ability to express yourself without the government stopping you from doing so. (Other people stopping you from doing so is protected by property rights and the right to protect your life.) And we both recognize that a private property owner is within their rights to have anyone speak or not speak on their own property. So why mention free speech when it’s not related to the issue? Saying that puts people on their guard and makes their walls go up. Removing that reference will improve the rest of the article and keep people from getting defensive before they read your argument.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: