UPDATE: March 10, 2012
Here is some more on this situation from Instapundit, Robert Shibley at PJ Media, and James Taranto at the WSJ. Glad the campus cops were there to throw the interfering students hecklers out of the Professor's class. NOT!
-----------------------------------------------------
More real "speaking truth to power."
This is interesting, funny, and sad, all at the same time. I wonder how much money Joel Seligmann makes. If a kid of mine was attending the University of Rochester, I would be looking to see if I was getting my money's worth, that is unless all of his classes were taught by Professor Landsburg.
A professor at the University of Rochester, Steven Landsburg, has written a number of blog posts generally applauding Rush Limbaugh for his criticism of Sandra Fluke's position that we (the tax payers) should pay for contraceptives for her use. Mr. Landsburg's posts are here, here, and here.
The President of the University, Joel Seligman has weighed in on Mr. Landsburg's blog posts here, expressing that he was "deeply disappointed to read" Professor Landsburg's posts.
And Mr. Landsburg has responded here, including his email to Mr. Seligman. I quote from his response-
"President Seligman says that the mission of the university is to promote the free exchange of ideas and lively debate, and I agree. That mission is undermined whenever a member of the academic community elevates raw self-interest over the exchange of ideas.
That’s what Sandra Fluke did. She observed that contraceptives are expensive, and therefore demanded that somebody other than herself and her fellow students pick up the tab. She didn’t even pretend to be interested in debating any of the serious issues raised by the question of when some of us should pick up the tab for others’ expenses.
Sometimes we should, sometimes we shouldn’t, and there’s a lot to be said, discussed, and debated about the particulars. An emotional appeal for one’s preferred outcome, ignoring all the substantive issues, is the exact antithesis of the free exchange of ideas that President Seligman claims to endorse.
I’ve had three blog posts on this subject, here, here, and here. The commenters have offered many bright and lively arguments and observations, some of which have led me to modify some of my views.
This is a wonderful thing. It’s also the very opposite of Sandra Fluke’s approach, which amounts to a contemptuous dismissal of the very possibility of engaging these issues through intellectual discourse. I’d have expected a distinguished academic to feel the same way."
That's my bold.
It's refreshing to hear someone on a university faculty advocate for an environment of "bright and lively arguments and observations" which may lead another to modify their views, instead of "an emotional appeal for one’s preferred outcome, ignoring all the substantive issues."
It's equally distressing to hear the leader of that same university smack down the faculty member.
