Three university presidents found themselves unable to explain to members of a House committee the difference between reprehensible but protected free speech and terrorist actions. Perhaps they should have given an extreme example, such as the following:
“If a person holding a position with the university were to attempt to argue that the mass killing of members of a particular ethnic group is somehow morally justifiable, that would be reprehensible but protected speech. If, on the other hand this person were to spend 10.5 million dollars a day of university money to kill those people and then try to spend 14 billion dollars more to kill more of them, it would become necessary to remove him/her from that position. Do you understand Congressman/woman?”
If they don’t understand, perhaps their constituents will.
Leave a Reply