Letter to the Editor: Nathan Shrader

Dear editor, It was disappointing to see some students tear a page from the Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh playbook both prior to and throughout the Oct. 20 visit by [former] Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders. Rather than

Dear editor,

It was disappointing to see some students tear a page from the Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh playbook both prior to and throughout the Oct. 20 visit by [former] Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders. Rather than trying to shut down debate and live in a political echo chamber, these concerned students should have embraced the opportunity to hear a message they disagreed with and used the information presented to either reflect upon or better comprehend their presently held views. Instead, the disrespectful behavior of a slim minority of those in attendance caused the event to end early and give Temple a terrible black eye in the public sphere.

Nobody expects one to change their views to accommodate a visiting speaker or dignitary. However, it is simply in good taste to respect the opinions of others and allow their views to be heard. The purpose of the university is to enhance the free marketplace of ideas by allowing competing thoughts and opinions to be discussed, debated and analyzed openly. Shouting down visiting speakers because of theoretical or policy-oriented disagreements isn’t simply juvenile behavior; it also runs counter to the rules of civility that maintain a functional, courteous society.

The late Allan Bloom, a University of Chicago professor and author of The Closing of the American Mind, wrote that “given the increasing and menacing pressures for conformity growing up within the university, it seems reasonable to ask whether it will not be necessary for thinking men to return to the isolation of private life in order to think freely.” Let us hope that we can all agree that the free marketplace of ideas and the freedom to think for oneself are worthy of preservation at this great institution.

Nathan Shrader
Graduate Student
Political Science

4 Comments

  1. Hi Nathan,

    Isn’t the norm, status-quo in the present society to accept that “anything” should be said without question under the so-called umbrella of free speech?

    I think the students have demonstrated that they will not conform to ideas that do not represent the essence of free speech.

  2. Anyone who associates these student’s behavior with either Glenn Beck or Rush obviously has not listened to what either has said or what they advocate or what they stand for. The comparision is disingenuous. This type of disruptive behavior occurs frequently at university forums by left leaning individuals. I wonder if Mr. Shrader is moved to write letters to the editor in these instances. Or does he feel it is OK when it the speaker is someone with a more conservative viewpoint? This type of behavior from small radical groups…either right or left…should not be tolerated.

  3. Hello Nathan,

    Excellent letter!!

    In American society today the “free market place of ideas” has become an offense and a crime. I am a non-traditional student who attended a state university in the South of the United States during my freshman and junior years. During that time I noticed only one direction and one voice in the classrooms, my ideas were the opposite of what the majority supported.

    Through my participation and comments in class I sadly discovered that students did not express their opinions even when they disagreed; and if they expressed something it was in an uneducated manner as some did at Mr. Wilder even. The professors gave me the impression of being dictating machines reprogramming the mind of young people to listen and to accept only one side in a variety of issues. Your statement and quotation of the late Allan Bloom, a University of Chicago professor and author of The Closing of the American Mind—“Given the increasing and menacing pressures for conformity growing up within the university, it seems reasonable to ask whether it will not be necessary for thinking men to return to the isolation of private life in order to think freely.”

    This is exactly what I have noticed in schools, churches, and among many individuals; it is frustrating to see that their “neutrality” or “politically correct” attitudes are taking away their freedoms and they do not know it. Going back to describing my experience at a state university, the sentiment in general was anti-American; I felt crushed and disappointed when the image I had of this nation and its citizens was slowly disintegrating. I bombarded my professors with questions; the truth was all that I wanted.

    I came from a Central American country many years ago; what I learned reading about the United States of America—and from my father who was an American—before I came here, inspired me to love and admire this country and its freedoms; but what I was learning at this university was changing my admiration to disappointment and resentment. I left the school to attend one were I will not be feed with hatred against our own country, the United States of America. If this experience at the state university affected me so much, can you imagine what it does to the young minds which are learning only one side of the story and refuse to have an open mind to learn and create their own conclusions and opinions? At least I was able to overcome and separate the “truth” presented at the school, and the truth I knew because of what I lived in Central America, when many in the name of social justice committed cruel acts of injustice; furthermore, not everyone became rich, hunger and poverty were redistributed .

    I know the other side of the story that the media never told and professors never repeated in their classrooms only because it was different to what they believed. Therefore, I am deeply touched by your letter to the editor; I appreciate your stand and our nation can be hopeful and encouraged that young people like you, Temple University Purpose members, and all the students who stood for freedom of speech, will continue to stand for what is right, just and constitutional.

    Reina Howard

  4. After reading another article of Mr.Qaiser Abdullah I discovered that he is the same Qaiser Abdullah who wrote a comment against the post from the outstanding graduate student, Nathan Shrader. Why am I surprised and condemning that Mr. Qaiser Abdullah wrote this comment? He is an adjunt professor at the college of education!!! He is openly expressing his bias and attacking a student who is courageous to stand for what is right and constitutional. I am a non-traditional student who have experienced being in class with this kind of professors and I resent the one way brain wash they are imposing on their students. Can you see why so many Americans who attend higher learning institutions hate their country?

    Qaiser Abdullah
    Adjunct Professor
    College of Education

Leave a Reply to Quaiser Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.


*