Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Ricochet’s Greg Lukianoff Wins Intelligence Squared Debate
Last week, Ricochet contributor Greg Lukianoff, President of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), asked for our members’ help in preparing for an NPR Intelligence Squared debate in which he and Kirsten Powers were arguing for the motion that liberals are stifling intellectual diversity on college campuses.
Well, it worked. Prior to the debate — held last night in New York — 33 percent of the audience was on Greg and Kirsten’s side. After all the arguments had been made, they cruised to an overwhelming victory. The motion got 59 percent support and only 32 percent opposition (the remainder was undecided). Congratulations to Greg and Kirsten! Video of the event has not yet been released, but you’ll be able to find it here.
Published in General
Well Done Kirsten and Greg!
The Lefties tried to claim that jerk administrators sometimes picked on liberal students too. That’s like saying that it’s okay for cops to beat up or shoot Black suspects as long as they occasionally beat up or shoot a White suspect.
It’s entertaining reading some of the comments on the site where the debate will be broadcast. I’m looking forward to hearing it.
Excellent news. All is not lost. Thanks Mr. Lukianoff!
Let’s remember these are liberals debating liberals (or should I say liberals debating totalitarians) Greg and Kristin are both self proclaimed liberals. After Greg gave his opening remarks citing that he’s a liberal and has worked for liberal causes and saying also that he’s an athiest, the following is how the opposition responded:
Throughout the debate Jeremy and his partner alternately broadened their brush (as in the above strawman argument and blatant appeal toward the smear (as Greg and Rick Santorum are somehow ideological bedmates) and as suited their argument, narrowed definitions to absurdly fine points.
I submit that anyone who can use these two conflicting tactics in the same debate is insincere and despicable. I think the audience – at least some of them, had to see this blatant discrepancy.
Sadly I believe the results are a bit skewed, because Greg and Kristen made a case that the speech codes were affecting liberal students, and they made a good case. The fact that conservative students and ideas are far more at effect of these codes wasn’t stressed nearly enough. In keeping with the left-wing code of loyalty, if it hurts their side, okay, it may be harmful. Absent that point I wonder how many would have changed their original vote.
I’m all for remembering that liberals & lefties are different types, even with latter-day liberalism. I’d add, conservatives used to be called liberal, too, & you can still find liberals today whom no conservative would want to fight–Mr. Lukianoff, for example.
I’d like to know more about how the debate went, but so far I’m not really surprised that the debate was argued with a view to the overwhelmingly liberal audience.