[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I can understand NYU's point. I don't agree with censorship, but there's a fine line between letting them express their opinion, and letting them express their opinion through an authoritative channel.

A lecturer is an authority figure, in some form. They are teaching something to a group of people - the idea is that they know more than the others, and are sufficiently skilled, learned, or even "enlightened" to preach - er, teach - to students. A guest lecturer is arguably even more special than a standard full-time lecturer, because it means that there's something special about this particular person, such that the university is calling this person to give their own lecture over the standard lecturer.

Would you really want someone with despicable views in such a position? A lecture hall is not a debate room; it is not for the students to challenge the lecturer (which would have the potential to get them into trouble on the grounds of being disruptive). To shift it to an extreme example, would you be OK with a big-name university having a Holocaust denier give a special lecture to a history class?

My opinion is that I wouldn't. Sure, if the university does it as an example of how some people take a warped view on history or something to that extent, maybe it'd seem legit. But to call someone in as an expert, to teach a course based on their supposed expertise - you're not saying that their views are right, necessarily, but you're certainly giving them credit for them. Call her in to a question & debate session, maybe, but not to give a lecture - especially not on that subject where she has some needlessly hateful views.

Then... Change the format and call in another guest lecturer with an opposite view so they can debate?