DePaul University recently saw a visit by conservative Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopolis shut down by students that disagreed with his message.
Some peacefully protested. However, many others saw fit to impede the free flow of ideas in a space supposedly dedicated to this ideal.
These illiberal agitators seized the stage and stole Yiannopolis’ microphone to broadcast their own message — an obnoxious airhorn.
Regardless of what one thinks of Yiannopolis’ conservative ideas, this must be recognized as the beginning of the death of a university.
DePaul purports to be an educational institution where students can encounter and interact with new beliefs, something impossible if every petty individual with a bullhorn can shut this process down at will.
This is the context in which conservative political commentator Ben Shapiro’s speech was received. According to The Daily Wire, administrators cited security concerns in their decision to ban his appearance on campus.
These concerns may or may not be real, but this decision is damaging either way. This creates a feedback loop where students are rewarded via press coverage for preventing forms of speech they find unpalatable. The suppression of free speech should not be so easy.
DePaul administrators are now at a crossroads. They must either choose to allow unpopular speakers and ideas on campus, providing any additional security they deem necessary, or surrender any notions of providing a broad-based education.
On the other hand, DePaul could choose to fill the role of an institution that provides nothing more than career preparation and job readiness.
This is certainly needed in the world and is a respectable function. Those that would like to be accountants and chemists and absolutely nothing more in life would certainly be well-served by such an institution.
That being said, those with curiosities beyond a narrow band of technical expertise would be best served somewhere else.
If this is to be the new DePaul, then the responsible decision for the school would be honesty and forthrightness towards potential and current students.
Unfortunately, we are unlikely to see DePaul choose either course of action.
Administrators seem likely to choose the third and worst option: continuing on as though nothing has changed, turning pale at the slightest semblance of breaks with campus ideological orthodoxy and passing out heckler’s vetoes on demand.
Logically, this feedback loop will continue on until administration finally sees fit to change course and return to open-mindedness and freedom of thought. Until then, the demands of ideological conformity on campus will become so stifling that those desiring more than an echo chamber out of their education will go elsewhere.
As things stand now, we are witnessing the slow decay of a formerly great university.
zaochamb@indiana.edu
